Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in. the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Gloucestershire, Warwickshire and Worcestershire) Bill (by Order),

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Wednesday, at half-past Seven of the clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

CONVERSATIONS.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 3 and 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India (1) the result of the interview granted by the Viceroy to Mr. Gandhi;
(2) whether he can now make a statement as to the political position in India as a result of the consultations between the Indian members of the Round Table Conference and the leaders of the Congress party?

Mr. FREEMAN: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has any information with regard to the attitude of the Congress party towards the Round Table Conference proposals?

Major GRAHAM POLE: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is in a position to make a statement in rgard to the discussions between the Viceroy and Mr. Gandhi and certain Indian political leaders at New Delhi?

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he is now in a position to tell the House the result of the interviews which took place between the Viceroy and Mr. Gandhi?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Bonn): As the conversations are still proceeding, I am not at present able to make any statement. Needless to say, I will seek the earliest possible opportunity of giving the House information.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: While we are anxious that these conversations should be successful, may I ask whether sufficient time has not been given for some kind of co-operation in reply to the very generous offer made to them at the Round Table Conference, and whether, in the circumstances, these conversations are not doing rather harm?

Mr. BENN: I will ask the House to exercise a little patience. Needless to say, I am anxious for the earliest possible sign of co-operation.

Captain MACDONALD: Are these negotiations being conducted on the advice of His Majesty's Government or entirely on the initiative of the Viceroy?

Mr. BENN: The hon. and gallant Member does not understand the position. The responsibility for Indian policy rests on these benches.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: Are not these conversations having a disastrous effect on our prestige?

Mr. FREEMAN: Are the principal points at issue still the Salt Tax, picketing and the alleged brutality of the police?

CONFERENCE.

Mr. FREEMAN: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is yet in a position to make any statement as to His Majesty's Government's plans for carrying on the work of the Round Table Conference; and whether the next session will be held in India?

Mr. BENN: I am afraid I am still unable to make a statement on this on subject.

BURMA.

Mr. FREEMAN: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether it is proposed to hold any separate inquiry into the proposals for the future government of Burma, or whether this matter will only be considered in conjunction with the Round Table Conference proposals generally?

Mr. BENN: I am not yet able to make any statement as to the methods to be adopted for framing a new constitution for Burma; but since the intention is—as already announced by His Majesty's Government—that this constitution should be for a Burma separated from India, there can be no doubt, I think, that it must be worked out—in the main at all events—by machinery different from that to be devised for carrying on the work of the Round Table Conference in framing a new constitution for India.

Mr. FREEMAN: Will there be an opportunity of reconsidering this matter
before a final settlement is reached, or is it a final settlement?

Mr. BENN: I must refer the hon. Member to the statement made at the Conference.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does the answer of the right hon. Gentleman mean that in no case will Burma be in an inferior status to India in these negotiations?

Mr. BENN: That point also was dealt with at the Conference.

TRAINING SHIP "DUFFERIN."

Major POLE: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will give information in regard to the type and duration of the course of training given on the training ship "Dufferin," Bombay; whether this training is sufficient to enable the boys passed out of the "Dufferin" to be taken into the Royal Indian Marine; and the number of boys from the "Dufferin" who have been so absorbed?

Mr. BENN: I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of the prospectus of the "Dufferin," which I hope will give him the information for which he asks in the first part of the question. As regards the remainder, a special competition limited to "Dufferin" cadets was held last May with a view to facilitating the entry of such cadets into the Royal Indian Marine. The examination was assimilated in standard and type to that for the admission of candidates from mercantile marine training establishments in this country to the Royal Navy. Unfortunately none of the candidates succeeded in reaching the prescribed qualifying standard. A further competition will he held next autumn and in the meantime additional tuition will be afforded by the introduction of a special coaching class. A modification in the list of subjects is also being considered in the light of the results of the last examination.

QUININE (CULTIVATION AND DISTRIBUTION).

Major POLE: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for India the present position in the matter of the consultations between the Government of India and the Provincial Governments on the ques-
tion of centralising the whole subject of cinchona cultivation and the manufacture and distribution of quinine, as suggested by the Royal Commission on Agriculture in India, as a first step towards the reduction of the price of quinine in India to a level at which it would be possible to embark on an extensive anti-malaria campaign?

Mr. BENN: The Government of Madras have expressed their agreement with the recommendations of the Royal Commission and their willingness to transfer their plantations and factory to the Government of India. The Government of Bengal wish to retain their plantations and factory in their own hands and consider that in any case no change should be made until the future constitution of the Central and Provincial Governments has been settled. In the case of Burma no action can of course be taken, at least for the present, in view of the recommendation of the Round Table Conference in favour of the separation of Burma. I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of a report recently received from the Government of India.

PRISONERS (Ex-SERVICE MEN).

Mr. BRACKEN: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for India the number of men who served in the Indian forces during the Great War who are now imprisoned in India for political offences?

Mr. BENN: I can add nothing to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for South Derby (Major Pole) on the 6th February.

Mr. BRACKEN: The right hon. Gentleman himself stated that there were thousands of Indian ex-soldiers in prison in India. May I ask him where he got his information?

Mr. BENN: If the hon. Member will be good enough to road the answer to which I have referred, he will see that I took special occasion for correcting what was a mishearing in the Gallery.

MEERUT TRIAL.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for India what cost has been incurred by the Government of India to date in connection with the Meerut trial?

Mr. BENN: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Commander Southby) on 26th January. I have no later information.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In view of the financial situation in India, are any special steps being taken to hasten this trial and thus cut down the costs?

Mr. BENN: We have made every endeavour to shorten the trial, but I hesitate to do any more as the proceedings are now concerned with the defence.

Mr. STEPHEN: Has the possible release of these prisoners been taken into consideration in connection with the questions that are being discussed?

Mr. BENN: I think we must await the judgment of the court.

ATTACK ON POLICE, HENZADA DISTRICT.

Mr. DAY: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can give any information of the recent attack made upon a party of military police at Zaingthwe, near Tharawaddy?

Mr. BENN: The only recent attack upon the police of which I have official information was one in the Henzada District in which 250 villagers attacked two police officers and a few constables. Nine villagers were killed and, on the Government side, the driver of a motor omnibus was seriously injured.

Mr. DAY: May I ask whether any police were injured?

Mr. BENN: I have given the hon. Member that information.

RUSSIAN COTTON GOODS (IMPORTS).

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has any information to give the House regarding imports of cotton goods of Soviet Russian origin into India?

Mr. BENN: No, Sir, I have no information.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: May I ask whether there is any possibility of ascertaining whether Soviet Russia are exporting cotton goods into India?

Mr. BENN: I think the hon. Member is under a complete misapprehension. The imports of cotton of Soviet Russia into India are so negligible that they are not even classified.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long His Majesty's Government have been privy to the proposed increase in cotton duties and whether Lancashire interests have been consulted at all?

Mr. BENN: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

MILITARY COLLEGE (COMMITTEE).

Earl WINTERTON: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for India if it is intended that any proposals put forward at the recent Round Table Conference which do not require an amendment of the Government of India Act in order to be effected shall be put into operation; and, if so, whether he will state which proposals will be so treated?

Mr. BENN: The Government of India have already announced that a committee will be set up at an early date to formulate plans for the Indian Military College which it is intended to establish. There may be other administrative action which can be taken in the near future, and sympathetic consideration is being given to any such possibility.

Earl WINTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman publish a White Paper or otherwise inform the House of the intentions of His Majesty's Government having regard to the great importance of this matter?

Mr. BENN: Certainly. I will take every means of informing the House of Commons of anything that is intended.

Earl WINTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman further consider publishing a White Paper explaining exactly what is meant by the speech of the Commander-in-Chief in the Assembly on behalf of His Majesty's Government in which he foreshadowed a very extensive increase in Indianisation, about which we have had no information yet in this House?

Mr. BENN: Perhaps the Noble Lord will put a specific question on that point, to which I shall he glad to give a detailed reply.

ARRESTS.

Earl WINTERTON: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he is now in a position to give the figures, for any later period than the end of 1929, of arrests in British India for the following offences: sedition, incitement to violence, unlawful assembly, breaches of the salt and forest laws and breaches of the ordinances issued by the Governor-General in Council to maintain law and order?

Mr. BENN: I have asked the Government of India to let me have such information as is available and will communicate with the Noble Lord in due course.

AIR MAIL SERVICE (KARACHI-CALCUTTA).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for India when the Government of India is expected to start its own air mail service from Karachi to Calcutta, via Delhi; whether in the meantime it could be arranged for this service to be run by Imperial Airways, so as to connect England with Australia, via Burma and the Straits Settlements; and what is the present position with regard to air mails across India?

Mr. BENN: As I informed my hon. and gallant Friend on 23rd February, the extension of the Indian State Air Service to Calcutta is expected to be in operation by the end of this year. No proposals for the working of the Karachi to Calcutta section of the air route to Australia by Imperial Airways Limited are before the Government of India. Mails are at present being carried from London by air as far as Delhi only.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether this was not one of the questions exhaustively discussed at the Imperial Conference, and is there no way of hastening the completion of this Imperial air route?

Mr. BENN: I have stated that it is intended that the link between Delhi and Calcutta shall be put into operation as soon as practical considerations permit.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by the words "no proposals" in his answer?

Mr. BENN: What is meant is that where the line is worked it will be worked by the Government of India.

Earl WINTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what practical considerations stand in the ways of this proposal being carried out except the refusal of the Government of India to implement their promise?

Mr. BENN: I cannot admit that there has been any refusal to implement any promise on the part of the Government of India. The policy of the Government of India is that this line shall be operated by the Government of India and that policy is being carried through.

INDIAN ARMY OFFICERS' TRAINING.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for India what progress is being made in the establishment of training colleges in India for officers for the Indian Army; how many of these colleges it is proposed to establish; whether it is proposed to start an aviation school; and whether it is intended to train India gentlemen as officers in the artillery and engineers?

Mr. BENN: A full statement of the Government's policy in these matters was given in the speech made in the Council of State on the 25th February by the Commander-in-Chief.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I am aware of that speech. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer the first part of my question. Apart from speeches, may I ask what progress is being made in this matter?

Mr. BENN: It was for the express purpose of dealing fully with and with knowledge of this question that the Commander-in-Chief made his speech, and I can really add nothing to what he said.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this matter has been in the stage of setting up committees for some years? When are we going to get progress?

Mr. BENN: If the hon. and gallant Member will read the speech, he will see that it has long passed the stage of setting up committees. It is now a practical subject.

PRISONERS OF WAR (TREATMENT).

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that on 27th July, 1929, there were signed by representatives of Great Britain, the Dominions, and India one convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war, and a new Geneva convention for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded and sick of armies in the field, he will say why these conventions have not been presented to Parliament with a view to ratification?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Dalton): A number of legal questions have had to be examined in connection with these two conventions, one of which will require legislation to bring it into effect. The conventions will be laid before Parliament very shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

PORTUGUESE PORTS (FLAG DISCRIMINATION).

Mr. ALBERY: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether negotiations are proceeding with the Portuguese Government with a view to the abolition of the discriminatory Customs duties on cargo?

Mr. DALTON: A decree was issued on the 3rd of February by the Portuguese Government abolishing discriminatory quay dues. My right hon. Friend regrets, however, that, in spite of repeated representations by His Majesty's Ambassador at Lisbon, no satisfaction has yet been obtained on the question of flag discrimination on cargoes.

Mr. HANNON: If the Foreign Secretary were to tell the Portuguese Government that we would discriminate against their wines coming into this country, would we not get a more favourable reply?

BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: 30.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has any information he can give to the House in connection with the results of the British Industries Fair?

Mr. HANNON: 34.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he will make a general statement to the House on the success which has attended the British Industries Fair in Birmingham and London; the number of visitors to each section; and the views of his expert advisers on the volume of business done?

Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): So far as can be ascertained from inquiries among the exhibitors at the Fair, the business done in practically all sections has been thoroughly satisfactory. The total number of attendances by overseas buyers was 4,854 in London and 1,984 in Birmingham, a total of 6,838. Until it has been possible to analyse the cards received at both sections of the Fair, I cannot give the exact number of overseas buyers who attended, but we know that there is an increase of about 25 per cent. over last year's numbers. The visits by home buyers numbered 167,259 in London and 106,682 in Birmingham, a total of 273,941, showing an increase of 30,000 over last year's figures. Visits by the general public numbered 34,679 in London and 14,215 in Birmingham, a total of 48,894. The. increased attendance and volume of business done are particularly satisfactory in view of the present condition of world trade.

Mr. HACKING: Is it not possible to give some approximate figure representing the value of the orders placed?

Mr. GILLETT: I could not give any figure.

Mr. HANNON: Can the hon. Gentleman do anything to call the attention of our Commercial Secretaries and Consuls-General throughout the world to the success of these Fairs?

Mr. GILLETT: I shall take note of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

RUSSIA.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 31.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has yet come to a decision to publish an annual report upon trade conditions in the Soviet Socialist Republics or to issue some publication dealing with trade in that country?

Mr. GILLETT: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon.
and gallant Member for Lewisham East (Sir A. Pownall) on Monday, the 2nd February.

Sir K. WOOD: Why is the hon. Gentleman so nervous and frightened of dealing with this matter?

Mr. GILLETT: I think the right hon. Gentleman cannot be aware of the answer I have referred to, because I gave there very definite information.

Mr. SMITHERS: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the embargo on imports from Russia by the Canadian Government?

HON. MEMBERS: Order, Order!

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 33.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what British firms have, up to date, opened branch offices in Soviet Russia; what classes of goods they offer for sale; and what improvement in the British export trade with Russia has taken place during the past three months in those classes of goods?

Mr. GILLETT: In reply to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply returned on 2nd February, to the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald). In reply to the second part of the question, three of the firms concerned deal in material required by the engineering industry, and of the remaining two, one is a mining corporation, and the other a telegraph company. With regard to the third part of the question, the latest statistics available of exports of goods of British manufacture to the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics during the period of three months ended January, 1931, as compared with a similar period ended January, 1930, are as follow:

Three months ended January, 1931, £1,533,000.

Three months ended January, 1930, £1,128,000.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we were told by the Socialists that when trade with Russia was re-opened, it would put unemployment right; and is this all the export trade we are doing with Russia?

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the obligation imposed on this country by Article 23 (a) of the Covenant of the League of Nations, he will give instructions to the Export Credits Committee to suspend the grant of export credits to Russia until the Soviet Government agrees to an inquiry into the conditions of work in the Russian timber camps?

Mr. DALTON: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend does not consider that the objects of the Covenant of the League of Nations are likely to be promoted by the particular course of action suggested. I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer given by me to his question on the same subject on Monday last.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Can the hon. Gentleman yet suggest any effective action that the Government propose to take to carry out their obligations under the League of Nations Covenant?

Mr. DALTON: I do not think I can add anything to the very numerous replies to practically identical questions which have been returned on many occasions.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Can the hon. Member tell us when we may be able to expect any answer as to how the Government propose to carry out their obligations?

Mr. DALTON: It is not admitted on behalf of the Government that they have failed to carry out their obligations.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Does the hon. Gentleman propose to palter with slavery?

Mr. COCKS: Is it not the object of the League of Nations to promote good will between nations instead of bad feeling?

COAL EXPORT TRADE (TYNE PORTS).

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 32.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he will state what has been the course of the export trade in coal from the Tyne ports since the coming into operation of the Coal Mines Act, 1930?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): I have been asked to reply. The quantity of coal shipped as cargo from the Tyne ports (i.e., Newcastle and
North and South shields) for each month from August, 1930, onwards was:

Tons.


August
…
…
771,630


September
…
…
979,601


October
…
…
947,025


November
…
…
802,061


December
…
…
902,016


January, 1931
…
…
893,367

Particulars for February, 1931, are not yet available. I would remind the hon. Member that, although the Coal Mines Act received the Royal Assent on 1st August, 1930, the reduction in hours of work (Part III) did not become operative until 1st December, and that schemes for the regulation of output did not become operative until 1st January, 1931.

ITALY.

Mr. HANNON: 35.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he will state the recent change which has taken place in Italian law relating to selling agents or representatives of foreign firms in that country; and if his Department will call the attention of British trade organisations to any obligations which the new law imposes upon them?

Mr. GILLETT: As regards the first part of the question I have no knowledge of any change in Italian legislation affecting the persons referred to; the second part of the question does not therefore arise.

Mr. HANNON: Will the hon. Gentleman have inquiries made to see if any change in this direction has taken place in Italian law, affecting our trade in Italy?

Mr. GILLETT: Inquiries were made when the hon. Member put down his question, and we have not been able to obtain any information.

EMPIRE TRADE (ADVERTISING).

Mr. HANNON: 36.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he has given full consideration to the recommendation made in the report of the British trade mission to South Africa, namely, that the efforts of the Empire Marketing Board in this country on behalf of the Dominions and Colonies should have their counterpart in a State-
aided campaign to advertise British goods in all parts of the British Empire; and what action he proposes to take?

Mr. GILLETT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Government will not fail to bear in mind the views expressed in this report and I hope that at some future time it may be possible to take steps in the direction which the mission had in mind. I fear, however, that any substantial increase of expenditure on these lines is impracticable at present having regard to the financial situation.

Mr. HANNON: Is it not most important, if we are to carry on in this country, an intensive propaganda in favour of the sale of Imperial products —that is, the products of our Dominions and Colonies—that we should institute some corresponding propaganda in the Dominions and Colonies in favour of the sale of our own British products; and will the hon. Gentleman take that matter into immediate consideration?

Mr. PYBUS: Before the hon. Gentleman replies—[HON MEMBERS: "Answer!"]—may I ask him if he is aware that in the railway stations in South Africa advertisements of British goods are to be printed in both Dutch and English?

Mr. GILLETT: Yes, Sir, I am aware of that fact. I shall certainly bear in mind the point raised by the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon), and, if he sees any opportunity of doing anything, I shall be only too glad to consider the matter.

Captain EDEN: Why is this Government always waiting? The South African Government have already offered to help, and why cannot His Majesty's Government do something?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (MURDER OF BRITISH MISSIONARIES).

Sir K. WOOD: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now state if he has received any reply as a result of the representations of His Majesty's Minister in China as to the capture of the murderers of the two British lady missionaries?

Mr. DALTON: The Chinese Minister for Foreign Affairs has on several occasions assured His Majesty's Minister of the earnest intention of the Chinese Government to make every effort to capture these criminals. Strong military forces are at present engaged in extensive operations against bandits in the province of Kiangsi, where this outrage occurred, and instructions have been issued for the apprehension of the murderers.

Sir K. WOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman say when last the British Government sent any communication on this subject?

Mr. DALTON: We are constantly in touch with the Chinese Government on all these questions. I could not answer this specific question without notice, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary feels very strongly on this subject, and we are doing everything we can to urge the Chinese Government—who, on their part, are very willing to do their best—to bring these malefactors to justice.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Do the representations which have recently been made to the Chinese Government deal with this point? I know that general representations have been made, but have definite representations been made recently for the apprehension of these murderers?

Mr. DALTON: I must ask for notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL ARMAMENTS.

Captain EDEN: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to make any statement as to the outcome of his negotiations n naval armaments with the French and Italian Governments?

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make any statement on the naval negotiations which he has been carrying on with the French and Italian Governments?

Mr. DALTON: I am happy to be able to inform the House that, following upon conversations of a most cordial character both in Paris and Rome, such a measure of agreement has been reached on the
naval question as will, my right hon. Friend hopes, result in the settlement of the questions relating to the limitation of naval armaments left outstanding by the Treaty of London. This agreement will now be submitted to the Governments of the United States of America, Japan, the Dominions and India.

Captain EDEN: Has there been any modification of the London Treaty signed by us?

Mr. DALTON: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put that question on the Paper for Wednesday. My right hon. Friend is returning to London this evening, and I have no doubt that on Wednesday he could give an answer.

Sir C. CAYZER: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that in order to obtain this agreement his colleague has not committed this country to any obligation in the Mediterranean?

Mr. DALTON: I have every confidence that my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the First Lord of the Admiralty, in the negotiations which they have so skilfully conducted, have served the best interests of this country.

Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that opinion is not always shared by hon. Members on this side?

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA (MILITARY RESERVE).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now give the House information concerning the proposals of the Government of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics to create a force of 15,000,000 military reservists?

Mr. DALTON: His Majesty's Ambassador at Moscow has been officially informed by the Soviet Government that the alleged instructions for the formation of such a reserve, which have been mentioned in certain organs of the Press, have no existence. I understand that some military training is normally given in Soviet schools and universities, and also through the agency of certain organisations, such as the Society for Aerial and Chemical Warfare, and the Automobile and Road Improvement Society.

Captain MACDONALD: Can the hon. Member state what is the Reserve strength of the Soviet Army at the present time?

Mr. DALTON: No, Sir.

Mr. WELLOCK: Is it not the case that military training is given in this country in officers training corps at public schools and universities?

Mr. DALTON: Yes, Sir. In that respect our practice seems to resemble that of Soviet Russia.

Oral Answers to Questions — LADY OWEN (SENTENCE).

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he proposes to make any inquiries regarding the sentence passed on Lady Owen by the French courts?

Mr. DALTON: No, Sir. Lady Owen was convicted by the French courts of attempted murder, and there does not appear to be any ground on which His Majesty's Government could properly intervene.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the French newspapers are practically unanimous in condemning this sentence?

Oral Answers to Questions — ALBANIA (KING ZOG).

Captain GAZALET: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information in regard to the recent attempt on the life of King Zog of Albania; and whether he has received any communication from His Majesty's representative at Tirano as to the effect the event has had upon the conditions in Albania?

Mr. DALTON: My right hon. Friend has nothing to add to the full description of the circumstances attending the attempted murder of King Zog on the 20th of February, which has already been published in the Press. As regards possible effects in Albania, my right hon. Friend has not yet received a report from His Majesty's Minister at Durazzo, but I will, if the hon. and gallant Member so desires, communicate to him the substance of any report which may be received.

Captain CAZALET: Are conditions in that country normal now?

Mr. DALTON: We have had no report to the contrary.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

STATISTICS.

Sir PATRICK FORD: 28.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he will state how many officers and how many men who were drawing war disability pensions died as the result of their war disability in the year ended 31st March, 1930; and how many of these left widows or children who were then granted pensions under the War Pensions Regulations?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. F. O. Roberts): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for the Wrekin Division of Shropshire (Miss Picton-Turbervill) on Thursday, the 26th February, of which I am sending him a copy.

MECHANICALLY-PROPELLED TRICYCLES.

Mr. DAY: 29.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he can state the number of mechanically-propelled tricycles supplied by the Ministry at present in use by disabled men in receipt of pensions; and can he state the amount expended by the Ministry during the previous 12 months for the upkeep of these vehicles?

Mr. ROBERTS: The number of mechanically-propelled tricycles now in use by pensioners of the Ministry is 2,204. The cost to the Ministry of upkeep of these tricycles was approximately £4,800 during the year 1929–30.

Mr. DAY: How often are these vehicles renewed?

Mr. ROBERTS: They are renewed as often as necessary and kept in proper repair.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

GREY SQUIRRELS.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: 37.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the growing danger from grey squirrels, as set out in the literature issued by his Department, he will suggest to the
different local authorities the desirability of offering a reward for each grey squirrel killed in its area?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): I understand from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health that local authorities have no power to offer rewards such as the hon. Member suggests. I am, moreover, advised that the experience of this and other countries in connection with other pests indicates that such a method of securing the destruction of grey squirrels would probably prove unsatisfactory, and would be liable to abuse.

SUGAR-BEET (FREIGHTAGE).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 38.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in cases where farmers outside the factory areas are unable to obtain remunerative contracts for sugar-beet owing to being required to pay the full cost of railway freightage, he will consider recommending Parliament to make a special grant for the purpose of meeting part of the cost of carriage

Dr. ADDISON: I cannot accept the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member.

Captain MACDONALD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that farmers outside these areas are precluded from receiving any benefit at all from the present contracts made by the factories?

Dr. ADDISON: The arrangement recently entered into took account of all these matters.

Captain MACDONALD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the farmers who are now outside should be brought in; or are they to be left out of these arrangements altogether?

FOREIGN PRODUCE (STAMP BOOK ADVERTISEMENTS).

Captain MARGESSON: 40.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the result of his consultation with the Postmaster-General with regard to the advertisement of Danish bacon in postage-stamp books?

Dr. ADDISON: My hon. Friend has arranged that the Post Office will not accept for stamp books or other Post Office publications any advertisement of an avowedly foreign article of agri-
cultural produce which competes with a home-produced commodity.

MARKETING BILL.

Mr. DALLAS: 41.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what representations he has received from firms, members of the National Poultry Council, with regard to the leaflet hostile to the Marketing Bill issued by the National Poultry Council on behalf of poultry and chicken food manufacturers?

Dr. ADDISON: I am unaware to what extent the firms on whose behalf the circular is alleged to have been issued, are members of the National Poultry Council. I am, however, informed by the Scientific Poultry Breeders' Association, which is a very large manufacturer of feeding stuffs on behalf of its members and is affiliated to the National Poultry Council, that it is not associated with the issue of this circular, which in my opinion, is inaccurate and misleading propaganda.

Mr. ALPASS: Is it not a fact that one of the greatest experts in the marketing of British eggs, who has handled over 12,000,000 is very strongly in favour of the principles of the Bill?

Dr. ADDISON: I think that is so.

Earl WINTERTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to imply by his answer that the National Poultry Council has issued a spurious manifesto?

Dr. ADDISON: No, but I say that statements in the manifesto are inaccurate and misleading.

Mr. HANNON: Is it not the case that the National Poultry Council considered the Bill on its merits, and that, like any other public body, they are entitled to make representations upon it?

Dr. ADDISON: I have no doubt that they did so. All I say is that their statements are inaccurate and misleading.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to letters in the Press, the Council think his speech inaccurate and misleading.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Mr. DAY: 42.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of fresh cases of outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease that have been confirmed by his Department
during the six months ended to the last convenient date; and whether it has been possible to identify the origin of the initial cases in any of these centres?

Dr. ADDISON: 10 cases of foot-and-mouth disease, distributed between six separate centres, have been confirmed by the Ministry during the six months ended 26th February last. In none of the initial cases was it possible definitely to identify the origin of infection.

EMPLOYMENT (STATISTICS).

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: 43.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the total number of male workers in employment on agricultural holdings of above one acre on 4th June, 1928, 1929, and 1930, respectively; and how many of these were adults?

Dr. ADDISON: The total numbers of male workers returned on 4th June, 1928, 1929, and 1930, as being in employment on agricultural holdings exceeding one acre in England and Wales, were 670,137, 667,870, and 644,777 respectively. The adult male workers numbered 529,656 in 1928, 531,325 in 1929 and 515,280 in 1930.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman account for the grave decrease in the figures during his administration?

Dr. ADDISON: The figures went down long before I came into office.

Mr. WILLIAMS: How is it that the figures decreased so little during the administration of the Conservative Government, compared with last year?

RATING RELIEF AND WAGES.

Lady NOEL-BUXTON: 48.
asked the Minister of Agriculture to what extent the relief given to farmers for the year 1930, under the provisions of the Local Government Act, has been followed by an improvement in the wages of the farm-workers in any counties a England or Wales?

Dr. ADDISON: I have no definite information as to improvements effected, other than statutory. The only improvements during 1930 in the minimum rates of wages fixed under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924, were increases of 1s. per week in the rates of all classes of adult male workers in
Glamorganshire, and in the rates for certain classes of such workers in Merioneth and Montgomery.

Mr. ALPASS: Is it not a fact that the greater part of this relief has already gone into the pockets of the landowners?

CREDIT FACILITIES.

Lady NOEL-BUXTON: 49.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will make a statement showing the extent to which use is being made of the credit facilities afforded by the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation to improve the permanent equipment of farm holdings?

Dr. ADDISON: Up to and including Tuesday, 24th February, 1931, the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation had granted 43 loans amounting to £18,503 unde the Improvement of Land Acts (England and Wales). In addition to the above, the corporation have granted 2,302 loans amounting to £6,837,000 on mortgages. I am unable to say what part of this sum has been used by the borrowers to improve the permanent equipment of their holdings.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEPHONE INSTRUMENTS, HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.

Mr. HACKING: 50.
asked the Postmaster-General when he intends to replace existing telephone instruments in the Houses of Parliament by the newer type of one-piece instruments?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Lees-Smith): The new type of instrument has been fitted in the 21 telephone cabinets used by hon. Members.

Mr. HACKING: Is it a fact that the Postmaster-General had forgotten all about the House of Commons previous to this question being placed on the Notice Paper?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: No. I communicated with the Serjeant-at-Arms several weeks ago on this matter.

TELEPHONE SERVICE, BRISTOL.

Mr. CULVERWELL: 52.
asked the Postmaster-General why applicants for the installation of a telephone service in the Bristol area are being asked to wait at least 12 months for connection with the service?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Service to new subscribers in certain parts of the Bristol area involves the provision of new cables, and circuits will be available in about six weeks. The reference to 12 months seems to have been due to a misunderstanding, which may have arisen from the fact that the conversion of the Bristol exchanges to automatic working will not take place till next year.

Mr. CULVERWELL: I cannot agree that the—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] Am I correct in saying—[Interruption]. I have a letter which is in direct contradiction.

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot have letters read at Question time.

POLICE FORCES (TELEPHONE FACILITIES).

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 53.
asked the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the suggestion contained in the Constabulary reports for 1930 of the advantage in having telephones available outside certain selected police-station houses on the main roadways; and what action he proposes to take?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: The question of providing telephone facilities for police forces is primarily one for consideration by the police authorities, but I shall be happy to collaborate with them in devising any scheme such as that to which my hon. Friend refers.

LETTER COLLECTION, ABBEY, NEAR CHORLEY.

Mr. HACKING: 54.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he can see his way to provide a Sunday collection of letters from Abbey village, near Charley, where there is a population of about 700 persons who are at present, on an average, one mile away from the nearest pillar box which is cleared on Sundays?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I am having inquiry made and will write to the hon. Member.

FACILITIES, BERGHERS HILL.

Sir A. KNOX: 55.
asked the Postmaster-General what would be the cost of establishing and maintaining a sub-post office and a telephone call-office at Berghers Hill, in Buckinghamshire, to serve Berghers Hill, Hedsor, and Wooburn Common?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Without making detailed inquiry I am unable to give an exact figure, but in any case the cost would not be less than £30–£35 a year.

Sir A. KNOX: In view of this small cost, does the hon. Gentleman not think he could grant these facilities, which are wanted by a great number of people?

CAB-RANK TELEPHONES, MARYLEBONE.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 57.
asked the Postmaster-General if he will consult with the suitable authorities and arrange for the installation of more cab-rank telephone boxes in the Marylebone district; and will he also arrange that the telephone boxes at cab ranks should be painted pillar-box red and should state their telephone numbers so that the facilities offered may be brought to the notice of the public?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Telephones are provided free of charge at cab-ranks where the estimated traffic warrants their provision; and 10 cab-ranks in the Marylebone district are already fitted with telephones. The question of extending the facility is reviewed from time to time, and if the hon. and gallant Member has any particular case in mind, I will have inquiries made. If the telephone boxes were painted red there would be some risk of confusion with fire telephones and other appliances used by the Fire Brigade; and I do not propose to adopt this suggestion. Arrangements have been made for the telephone numbers of all cab-rank telephones to be displayed in white block letters and figures on a black background.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is, for example, a cab-rank telephone box in Marylebone, and that., as I came down by it, I saw that there was no number on it? Further, do we understand him to say that there are only 10 cab-rank telephone boxes in the whole Metropolitan area?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: No, I meant in Marylebone. I did not say that these notices had been erected; I said that arrangements had been made.

Oral Answers to Questions — ASSIZES, NORTH WALES.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: 60.
asked the Attorney-General whether he has considered the representations from Welsh
local authorities and other bodies and persons affected in regard to the recent holding of assizes for some of the North Wales counties at Chester; and whether, in view of the inconvenience involved to Welsh litigants and those who act for them, the Government will take into consideration the advisability of changing the venue of the assizes to a town in one of the North Wales counties?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Jowitt): Neither my right hon. Friend [...]he Lord Chancellor nor I have received any such representations. They will certainly receive careful consideration when made.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the holding of these assizes at Chester means empanelling a jury from Chester, and, in view of the language difficulty, does he not consider that this is a very serious hardship to the Welsh people?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I cannot help feeling that, if there had been such a serious hardship as the hon. Member suggests, some representations would have been made.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there are many communications on the way?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL MAIL STEAM PACKET COMPANY.

Mr. EDE: 58.
asked the Attorney-General whether he has examined the circumstances of the financial administration of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company; and what action he proposes to take thereon?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The issues involved, as my hon. Friend is probably aware, are very complicated in this case. In due course every aspect of the matter will come under my review. My hon. Friend will not, in these circumstances, expect me at the present time to give a reply in further detail.

Mr. EDE: Can my hon. and learned Friend assure the House that any decision taken will be absolutely irrespective of the social status of the persons involved?

Sir K. WOOD: Insulting your own Attorney!

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr. GOSSLING: 62.
asked the minister of Health whether the recent change in the medical benefit Regulations by which insured persons must give longer notice of their wish to transfer from one insurance doctor to another was made with the approval of the British Medical Association?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): The appropriate steps were taken to bring this proposal to the notice of the British Medical Association as soon as my right hon. Friend had formed the opinion that any further protection of insurance funds which could be secured by this means ought to be secured without avoidable delay. The whole subject was fully discussed at the annual conference of Local Medical and Panel Committees in October, and a resolution was passed requesting my right hon. Friend to defer the consideration of the matter for a year. My right hon. Friend is sensible of the importance which attaches to the principle of free choice of insurance doctors by insured persons, but complete freedom of choice was not accorded by the Regulation which has now been amended. The matter is therefore one of degree, and he decided that it was his duty to take action without the interposition of any prolonged period of delay such as had been suggested to him on behalf of the Association.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY (NEW CONSTRUCTION, GOVAN).

Mr. THORNE: 63.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the reasons why work upon the orders for two destroyers, which have been placed with the Fairfield Shipbuilding and Engineering Company, Govan, has not been commenced?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): The order for these vessels was placed as recently as 2nd February, and the firm is actively engaged on the preparatory work in connection with preparation of drawings and ordering materials. It is not the practice to inform firms when the actual practical work shall commence, but a specified date is laid down for completion.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.

Sir F. HALL: 64.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she will consider introducing legislation at once to amend the existing law governing the grant of unemployment pay so as to deal with those legal abuses of the present system which are known to exist, and as to the desirability of remedying which there may be substantial agreement without waiting for the conclusion of the investigations which are now being carried out by the Royal Commission?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): The hon. and gallant Gentleman is apparently in favour of judgment first and inquiry afterwards, where claimants to unemployment benefit are concerned. As was made clear in the recent Debates on the Unemployment Insurance Bill, the Government do not propose to introduce legislation on these subjects until the Royal Commission has heard evidence from organisations of employers and workers and from local authorities and has made its recommendations.

Sir F. HALL: Does the right hon. Lady not think, knowing that these abuses do exist, that it is quite time they should be taken cognisance of?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of opinion.

Captain P. MACDONALD: On a point of Order. Is the right hon. Lady justified in making allegations in reply to a question by an hon. Member, and attributing something to him that is not contained in the question?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is best not to do so.

Sir F. HALL: Are you aware, Sir, that I absolutely ignored it?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH ESTATES COMMISSIONERS.

Mr. WEST: 65.
asked the hon. Member for Central Leeds, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, which two of the three Church Estates Commissioners in office on 21st February, 1930—the date of the Comptroller and Auditor-General's last published report upon the Commissioners' accounts—were referred to in the Auditor's observation as to pay-
ments in addition to maximum authorised salary; why no similar payment was made to the other Commissioner; and whether similar additional payments have been made since the report referred to?

Mr. DENMAN (Second Church Estates Commissioner): The first and third Church Estates Commissioners receive statutory salaries and bonus on Civil Service scale. The second is unpaid. The bonus is still being paid to the two entitled to receive it.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION (SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE).

Sir K. WOOD: 66.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he proposes at an early date to bring forward any Parliamentary proposals in relation to the raising of the school age?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Morgan Jones): My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to make any announcement on this matter.

Sir K. WOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware when the President will be able to make some statement concerning this matter?

Mr. JONES: No, I am afraid not.

Oral Answers to Questions — WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACT (PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: 67.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of prosecutions that have been taken under the Wild Birds Protection Act during the year ended 31st December, 1930, along with the number of convictions that have resulted therefrom?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): Particulars for the year 1930 are not available, but the figures for 1929 will, with my hon. Friend's permission, be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures

During the year 1929, 231 persons were proceeded against in England and Wales for offences against the following Acts:

Wild Birds Protection Acts, 1880 to 1908.
30
Sand-Grouse Protection Act, 1888.
Protection of Birds Act, 1925.
Protection of Lapwings Act, 1928.

The results were as follow:


Convicted (and fined)
176


Charge proved and Order made without conviction
38*


Discharged
17



231


* This number includes 17 persons reprimanded and discharged on payment of costs under Section 3 of the Wild Birds Protection Act, 1880.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS.

Mr. ISAACS: 68.
asked the Home Secretary whether the Government have reached any decision as to introducing a Bill to deal with the situation created by the legal decisions relating to the Sunday opening of places of entertainment?

Mr. SHORT: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a question by the hon. Member for Central South-wark (Mr. Day) on this subject on the 26th ultimo.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of opposition to a Bill of this kind?

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH SWEEPSTAKE (CORRESPONDENCE).

Sir C. CAYZER: 69.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that, as a result of his instructions with regard to the opening and examination of letters addressed to the Irish Free State with the object of detecting communications referring to sweepstakes, delay is being caused in the delivery of private correspondence; and whether he will consider modifying his instructions with a view to removing the necessity for such delay?

Mr. SHORT: My right hon. Friend is not aware of any delay in the transmission of correspondence to persons taking no part in the promotion of the sweepstake.

Sir C. CAYZER: May I bring the facts to the hon. Gentleman's notice?

Mr. SHORT: Certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — MONEYLENDERS ACTS.

Mr. PYBUS: 71.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in consequence of the repeal of Sections 2 and 3 of the Moneylenders Act, 1900, by the Second Schedule to the Moneylenders Act, 1927, the register of moneylenders formerly kept at Somerset House and there open to public inspection has been discontinued, and that, no public register of moneylenders licensed under the Act of 1927 in fact exists; that no other means of ascertaining whether an individual is a licensed moneylender is now available to the public; and whether, for the protection of the public and, in particular, for the better enforcement of the penal provisions of the Moneylenders Acts, 1900 to 1927, he will cause such a register to be established?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): Prior to the Moneylenders Act, 1927, moneylenders were, subject to certain exceptions, required to register themselves at Somerset house. This system of registration was repealed by the Act of 1927, and, instead, persons wishing to trade as moneylenders can, again subject to certain exceptions, only do so if they secure certificates from the justices or other competent authorities, and take out Excise licences. My right hon. Friend does not consider that a re-enactment of the registration system would assist in the enforcement of the penal provisions of the relevant Acts.

Mr. PYBUS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that previous to this Act, there was a register to which people might go in order to find out whether a moneylender was registered or not, and that to-day there is no such protection?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I think that that was the effect of my answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES (BRITISH DEBT).

Captain CAZALET: 72.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Treasury has considered any scheme by which our debt to the United States of America should be paid in part by silver; and whether he has ascertained the view of the United States of America Government on such a proposal?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Unless and until the United states Government put forward a proposal of this kind, there is no scheme for the Treasury to consider.

Captain CAZALET: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a few years ago the United States Government altered the whole basis of debt settlement with another country along those lines, substituting silver payments for gold?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am not aware of that, but I will look into it.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Has not the silver question been considerably embarrassed by the decision of the Government of India to increase the import duties on silver?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROAD AND STREET IMPROVEMENT SCHEME, BRISTOL.

Mr. ALPASS: 74.
asked the Minister of Transport what schemes have been approved by his Department since June, 1929, for road and street improvements and in connection with utility undertakings for the city of Bristol?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The information asked for regarding road and street improvement schemes in Bristol is too detailed to be dealt with satisfactorily in reply to a question, and I have not yet obtained all the necessary information with regard to utility undertakings. I will, however, communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as my inquiries have been completed.

Oral Answers to Questions — KING'S BENCH JUDGES.

Sir HUGH O'NEILL (for Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON): 59.
asked the Attorney-General whether in view of the delays which are taking place in the trial of actions in London in the King's Bench Division and the denial of justice resulting therefrom, it is possible to increase the existing number of King's Bench judges; and if he will take the necessary steps for that purpose?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor is not satisfied that the state of business in the King's Bench Division is such as to justify His Majesty's Government taking steps to increase the number of judges.
Such delay in the trial of causes in London as exists is due partly to the obsence of judges on circuit and partly to illness. Steps have already been taken to deal with the situation. A Commissioner has been despatched on the Oxford Circuit, and Lord Darling and two Judges of the Court of Appeal are assisting in the King's Bench Division. Further steps of a like nature will be taken if circumstances appear to require them.

Mr. THORNE: On a point of Order. The hon. Member for North Newcastle-on-Tyne (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle) also rose to put this question. Is it not a fact that you gave a Ruling some time ago that no hon. Member could put a question on the second round unless he had permission from the Member who put the question on the Paper. I should like to know which of the two hon. Members had permission to put this question.

Mr. SPEAKER: I took it for granted that the hon. and learned Member who had the question on the Paper had been very generous in asking Members to put it for him.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY CHARGES, LONDON.

Mr. WEST (for Miss WILKINSON): 73.
asked the Minister of Transport the average rate per unit for power and light charged to householders in the London area by municipal undertakings and private companies, respectively; and whether he will take steps to compel the private companies to reduce their charges to the municipal level?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The returns for 1929–30 show that the average revenue per unit sold by the electricity undertakings in the Administrative County of London was as follows:

—
Lighting and Domestic Supplies.
Power.


Municipal Undertakings.
From 4.26d. to 1.30d. with a general average of 2.16d.
From 1.46d. to 0.75d. with a general average of 1.05d.


Company Undertakings.
From 5.15d. to 2.36d. with a general average of 3.29d.
From 1.59d. to 0.89d. with a general average of 1.12d.

With regard to the latter part of the question, my hon. Friend is no doubt aware that the London companies are subject to a sliding scale of price and dividend which was approved by Parliament in 1925, and which provides for the fixation of new standard prices to apply after the end of this year.

Mr. WEST: Am I to understand that company prices are just 50 per cent. above the prices of local authorities?

Mr. MORRISON: I have not worked it out on that basis, but the figures indicate that they are above municipal prices.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE DISPUTES AND TRADE UNIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, a question of which I have given notice to the Prime Minister, namely, what course His Majesty's Government propose to take in relation to the defeat of the Government in Standing Committee C last week?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): That question must be of very great moment and concern seeing that I was not told it was to be put until five minutes ago, and that the defeat, as it is described, took place last Thursday. So far as I am aware, and so far as reports have come to me, the Committee are still sitting and have been summoned for to-morrow. Therefore, the Committee are going on with their work—

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: To smoke cigarettes!

The PRIME MINISTER: The Committee will meet to-morrow to proceed with their unfinished work.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that the right hon. Gentleman received such very scanty notice; I am afraid that it was due to a misunderstanding between my right hon. Friend and myself, each supposing that the other had given notice to the right hon. Gentleman. As regards the substance of his reply, does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the consequences of a defeat on a matter of such importance, and the adoption of an Amendment so strongly resisted on
behalf of the Government by the Attorney-General, is a matter for the Committee, to be settled by them and not by the Government and this House?

The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly, until the business is finished. While accepting the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, I must ask the House to excuse me for giving the reply that I have given. Had I received the ordinary notice, I should have been prepared to give a more reasoned reply, but, whatever words I may have chosen for that reply, it would in substance have been the same. The Committee are summoned for to-morrow and are going to proceed with their work at the point at which they left off.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take no account of the Government defeat, but proposes to continue with the Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: That does not follow at all. The Committee are considering a particular point on which a Division took place last Thursday.

Mr. LEIF JONES: On a point of Order. Has this House anything to say on what happened in Committee upstairs until it receives a report from that Committee?

Sir K. WOOD: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot have two hon. Members on their feet at the same time. Mr. Leif Jones.

Mr. LEIF JONES: I venture to ask this question, because I think it is absolutely essential that the procedure of Committees upstairs should he independent of this House while the Committees are sitting. I submit that it was never intended that this House should review the proceedings of a Committee upstairs until it gets a report from the Committee.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that particular point of Order arises. The question put by the right hon. Gentleman from the Opposition Front Bench
was merely asking what the Government were going to do.

Mr. LEIF JONES: The Government having replied that the Committee intend to sit to-morrow, I submit that this House has nothing further to say.

Sir H. O'NEILL: On a point of Order. Suppose that the defeat had taken place in Committee of the Whole House, surely it would then have been competent, before that Committee reported, to consider the matter on the Floor of the House? Is there any reason why, because a defeat takes place in Committee upstairs, it should not equally be taken into consideration on the Floor of the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: It does not matter whether the incident occurs in Committee upstairs, or in Committee of the Whole House, it seems to me that the Opposition are always entitled to ask what the Government are going to do.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Mr. SPEAKER: It has been brought to my notice that cases have occurred in which notices of Questions have been sent by hand or transmitted through the post to the Clerks at the Table without the signature of the Member appearing on them or without a covering letter accompanying them signed by the Member by whom the Question is to be put. This practice is, of course, quite irregular. Notices of Questions must either be handed in at the Table by the Members themselves who wish to ask them, or, if sent by post, or otherwise delivered at the Table, must be signed by the Member who desires to have them put upon the Order Paper.

Mr. THORNE: I would like to say, so far as I am personally concerned, that I have never sent in a question to the Clerks at the Table without having either signed it or sent a covering letter with it.

Mr. E. BROWN: What a good boy am I!

Mr. SPEAKER: Then the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne) has always been quite in order.

CIVIL AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (ESTIMATES, 1931).

Estimates presented,—for Civil and Revenue Departments for the year ending 31st March, 1932, with Memorandum [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

CIVIL AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1931 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).

Estimate presented,—showing the several Services for which a Vote on Account is required for the year ending 31st March, 1932 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — COLONIAL NAVAL DEFENCE BILL. [Lords.]

Not amended (in the Standing Committee,) considered; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

METROPOLITAN POLICE (STAFF SUPERANNUATION AND POLICE FUND) BILL.

Not amended (in the Standing Committee,) considered; read the Third time, and passed.

BRITISH MUSEUM AND NATIONAL GALLERY (OVERSEAS LOANS) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading, read.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
It will be remembered by the House that some time ago a Royal Commission was appointed to go into the question of National Museums and Galleries, and in their recommendations they state that they have reached the conclusion that the time has come when this country should be prepared to loan collections of artistic works for centenary or other special exhibitions, or for purposes of reciprocity. They recommended that Parliament should be asked to pass a short Act which should empower the trustees of the British Museum, including the Museum of Natural History, and the Trustees of the National Gallery, including the Tate Gallery, to make loans overseas under such precise and proper safeguards as may be determined by the authorities of each institution. This Bill is the result of that recommendation. In its original form it embodied the recommendations of the Royal Commission. The Bill came first before another place, and in the course of its passage through that other place an Amendment was made to it in lines 12 and 13 limiting the objects which may form the subject of a loan to objects representative of British arts or crafts produced sub-
sequent to the year 1600. The Government have considered that Amendment, and when we come to the Committee stage of the Bill it is proposed to ask the House to delete that Amendment, preserving the wider powers which were expressed in the original terms of the Bill. I do not think that at this stage I need give the reasons why the Government propose to take that course, they will be elaborated on the Committee stage, but I thought it was only right to inform the House that that would be the attitude of the Government. I am sure that with the exception of that point, which may be the subject of some controversy, the Bill will generally command the assent of the House.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am afraid that I must weary the House a little in dealing rather in detail with the proposals of this Bill as well as with its general principles. The Financial Secretary has said, quite rightly, that the Bill was introduced to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Museums and Galleries, presided over by Lord D'Abernon, which is being carried out now in various particulars by the museum authorities of the country and by the Government. He also told us that during its passage through another place the Bill had undergone considerable alterations, and that it is the intention of the Government to move that the two alterations which have been made should be removed. It was not a case of one Amendment only in another place; there were two quite distinct and definite Amendments. My view is that the Government will be wise to retain one Amendment and to move the rejection of the other.
Two Amendments were moved to this Measure in another place. One of them confines the objects of the Bill to works of art of British origin; and the other Amendment, which is much more important, limits the power to loan overseas any works of art produced, whatever their origin, before the year 1600. I think that Parliament would be well advised to accept that Amendment for reasons which I shall give. While it is true that the genesis of this Bill is the unanimous recommendation of an extremely capable Royal Commission, the immediate occasion and cause for the introduction of this Measure is that, for
successive years in this country, we have had the advantage of having at Burlington House some of the most important and remarkable exhibitions of works of art that has ever taken place in the world. Great Britain has thus had the advantage of seeing in London all these great foreign works of art, so that ordinary folk who cannot afford to travel abroad have been able to see some of the greatest masterpieces of art collected from all the countries in the world.
It is high time, in the opinion of many of us, that there should be no longer a statutory bar against this country reciprocating. At the present time, that bar is not universal, and it only extends to the British Museum, the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square, and the National Gallery of British and Foreign Art at Millbank. Those three bodies are barred from lending any objects of art overseas either to our own Dominions and Colonies or to foreign countries. While the Italian exhibition at Burlington House last year was in the main furnished by the Italian Government out of its great national treasures, perhaps the most remarkable thing was the co-operation of other people sending important Italian works of art from all over the world. I have been refreshing my memory by looking up the catalogue, and I find that collections were sent to the Italian exhibition last year from the following museums: Berlin, Vienna, Louvre (Paris), Budapest, Amsterdam, Stockholm, Copenhagen, America and many of the great public galleries of the world. All these national collections lent in some cases one, and in other cases two or three, Italian pictures to the exhibition at Burlington House last year, and the only two collections that were not represented were Madrid and Leningrad.
Those two capitals were not represented in the exhibition, and I think that is regrettable. [Interruption.] Madrid was ready to lend exhibits, but I understand that Madrid is in the same position as our own National Gallery; there is a statutory bar, and special legislation is required to enable the directors and the trustees of the Madrid collection to lend overseas. Russia, again, was practically the only important country left out, but this year Russia is lending to the Persian
exhibition a number of exhibits. Flemish exhibits of the utmost value and importance have been lent not only by the Belgian Government but by other Governments. At the Dutch exhibition. Italy's loan was also one of the most important.
Next year London is again to be honoured by having an exhibition of French art gathered from many countries. It is not merely a matter of international honour, but it is a matter of international obligation that we should not be debarred from reciprocating in regard to the lending of works of art. Quite apart from the special advantage to the ordinary public of being able to see these works of art without travelling to the various capitals all over the world, an enormous importance attaches to such exhibitions by the opportunity which is given for scholarship and research.
Let me mention one or two valuable advantages of these exhibitions. Exhibitions have been used, and rightly used, not merely to display the best examples of the art of any particular nation, but to bring together artists from the scattered portions of the world, and still more important to bring together works of art which have a certain relation to each other. Perhaps hon. Members will recollect that one of the most interesting examples is that the exhibition last year was associated with the famous picture of the "Lady" from the Poldi Pezzoli collection at Milan which formed the subject of a very popular poster which was advertised all over London in connection with the exhibition. That was a picture famous for its beauty and interest and there has been a dispute regarding its authorship amongst all the leading authorities of the last generation. The authorship of that picture has been attributed to at least seven or eight different masters. On the occasion of the Italian exhibition, we had the opportunity of seeing that famous picture on the wall near to another picture closely related to it, from the Berlin Museum and another important picture from the American Museum in connection with the possible authorship of this picture.
4.0 p.m.
We also had close by, in the next room, a picture by the brother of this latter man from Turin, and those four pictures
were brought together for the first time, probably, since they were painted in Florence in the second half of the 15th century. Students of art became busy on them, and while we cannot yet say that it has been finally settled, at any rate, I think everybody is ready now to admit that it is in a fair way of settlement. It is most important, from the point of view of art scholarship, that these exhibitions should take place from time to time, and the seeing of a whole series of works of art by an individual master brought together is of immense interest in furthering not only popular appreciation, but furthering the scientific study of art.
Let me come to a point in connection with the desirability of these loans. Probably the greatest regret of the art-loving public and of connoisseurs in connection with the Italian Exhibition last year was the refusal of Lord Ellesmere to lend from Bridgewater House either of the two pictures that belong to the same set as the picture belonging to Lord Harewood, all painted for Philip II in Titian's later manner, which it was most desirable to bring together for comparison. Lord Ellesmere's point was this: "Why should I lend my pictures when the British nation never lends her's? The National Gallery, the Tate Gallery and the British Museum have not only never lent pictures, but are debarred by Statute from lending pictures, and I, the owner and tenant for life of these valuable masterpieces, will keep them, as the trustees of the National Gallery say, 'for greater safety,' on the walls where they now hang, and will not expose them to the risks which are alleged in support of the continuance of the statutory bar."
In respect to the question of reciprocity, we have heard it suggested, that in return for the loan from the national and public museums overseas, there should be the loan of British pictures, more particularly to British exhibitions on the Continent. It is perfectly clear that if an exhibition of British art is to be held in Rome or Amsterdam, as it were in answer to the exhibition of Italian pictures and Dutch pictures that we have seen in London, representation of British art will be wholly inadequate if both the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery are debarred from lending any of
their possessions. In regard to this, there is a difference of opinion between the governing authorities of the bodies most concerned. The British Museum trustees, I gather, are very suspicious of this Bill in any form, not to say hostile. In reading the Debate in another place on this point, it is perfectly clear that the British Museum take a very much more conservative view of their responsibilities in this matter, and are very much less willing to lend anything than are the other two galleries.
The position of the National Gallery, of which I am a trustee, is that there is an exactly equal division of opinion on the board, and as our chairman has not got a casting vote there is no decision on the board regarding the desirability of the Bill in its original form, that is to say in its widest form. I joined the board of the Tate Gallery since the matter was referred to it, and, therefore, I cannot speak with authority, hut if I can sense the opinion of the Tate Gallery now, they take the view that if they are to be empowered to lend at all, they cannot see why they can be trusted to lend Turners and Constables, and cannot be trusted to lend Cezannes and Renoirs. If occasion should arise, as contemplated in the recommendations in the report of the Royal Commission, that it is desirable to have a centenary exhibition of some of the great French artists, and the masterpieces of Degas, Manet or Corot are collected from all the galleries of the world for a centenary exhibition of the kind, are we alone among the nations of the world to be debarred by Statute from sending our contributions to that exhibition?
I understand therefore that the general view of the Tate Gallery is more favourable to it. Half my colleagues on the board of the National Gallery take a more conservative view than I, personally, have always taken. They take the view of the risk and danger of damage to a particular picture. When the matter was brought before us, it was always brought up against me, "Would you, knowing what you do, be prepared to lend the Van Eyk from the early Flemish room in the National Gallery?" and I always answered "No, of course not." Their reply was, "That is just the sort of picture you would be pressed to lend by the Government of the day, and responsible representations would be made by the
Belgian Ambassador, and political pressure would be put upon you to lend that picture." I say I believe that any board of trustees would resist it, because that picture ought not to be moved. It is a delicate panel, painted in 1438, and is in a condition where any violent shaking or any transport, other than transport under the greatest care, would be liable to damage it.
In fact, the problem of moving or lending the whole of the early Flemish school is a most difficult one. There was an exhibition last year at Antwerp, and I say, quite frankly, much as one regrets it, I am very glad the National Gallery could not, and was not asked to, lend to that exhibition, not because the exhibition authorities are not very careful. No serious damage, I am glad to say, was done, but I do know one delicate Flemish picture which was lent from a private collection in this country which, owing to shocks in transport, did lose two flakes of paint. Fortunately, by skilful restoration, they have been able to repair the damage, but there is a great danger with all early panel pictures, and I say, quite frankly, that any Bill which would empower the lending of, say, the Wilton Diptych to any exhibition overseas, would be a dangerous Bill, because the Wilton Diptych is, again, one of our great national treasures, one of the few really remarkable English Primitives left. It was once lent to an exhibition in Manchester, in 1857, and it did suffer, luckily not on the face but on the back, very serious damage, and when that picture was acquired by the National Gallery two years ago, the owner of it brought it up from the place where it always hung in Wilton House to the National Gallery, holding it in her hands, and driven in a car specially smooth running. The infinite care taken over the removal of that picture is not only a notable tribute to the loving care with which its owner then regarded it, but the kind of care that any body of trustees worthy of the name of trustees ought to exercise in regard to these delicate pictures.
That is why I welcome so strongly the suggestion in the Bill that works of art before 1600 should be absolutely safeguarded by Statute. We have plenty of works of art subsequent to 1600, both British and foreign, which would be well
put in these exhibitions, with far less risk of damage than with the early pictures, and I sincerely hope that the Government when they come to the Committee stage, will not move out that particular Amendment. What are the risks against which such special care must be taken in regard to these early pictures? They are not merely risks of transport, though those are the most important. They are risks in all the early panel pictures due to change of temperature and conditions. We have been wrestling with these problems for some time inside the National Gallery, and the dry summer of two years ago opened our eyes to the particular dangers that we run in sending old panels, accustomed to our comparatively humid London climate, to any country where there is an atmosphere and weather conditions at all dry, especially in the summer months. At the end of the summer months, I remember being particularly horrified on arriving at the board's meeting and being told that, as a result of the long, rainless summer, and the extreme dryness of the London atmosphere, one of the most outstanding of all our treasures at the National Gallery, the famous Nativity by Pierodella Francesca, had nearly split from top to bottom, and only by the ingenious use of clasps and gradually pressing it back was the damage done by the drying up of the panel, which through long years was accustomed to a particular standard of humidity, arrested. I do not want to see a picture like that moved from its present place.
The other point upon which great emphasis has been laid, particularly in another place, in connection with this Bill, is the danger of fire. That danger applies just as much to British as to foreign pictures. Whether you are lending foreign or British there is equally a risk of fire. There, again, I do not think any body of trustees or any director of one of our great British institutions is anything but fully seized of those places on the Continent of Europe where it would be safe to make a loan, and of those places where it would not. It is not for me to mention those in public to-day, but there are in one or two of the great galleries abroad what are known literally as fire-traps to which no board of trustees, knowing those conditions, would be for one moment willing to lend. In fact, the same kind of precautions would be taken
regarding the loan of any of our British national treasures as were taken by the authorities of the Ryksmuseum at Amsterdam, and the Forest House at the Hague on the occasion of the Dutch Exhibition here in London, and the equally elaborate precautions taken by Signor Modigliani and the leading representatives of Italy at the Italian Exhibition last year.
One more word about transport. I know that the public were rather excited and alarmed at the sending of practically the whole of the Italian section of the Italian exhibition last year in one ship, and the papers were full of headlines about the "treasure ship," the "Leonardo da Vinci," which brought the pictures from Genoa to London round by sea. The reason why that was done was a very obvious one. It was because, given all the risks of the sea, sea travel is far less dangerous to pictures of all dates and types than prolonged railway travel, and the less any picture has to bump over a railway system, however good the permanent way—and all the permanent ways of Europe are not good—the better. Sea transport is far safer from the point of view of pictures than railway transport. It is very remarkable how ready the great American owners, both public and private, have been to lend their pictures in this country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hythe (Sir P. Sassoon) has at this moment on view at 25, Park Lane some of the most magnificent treasures. Several Americans have sent to that exhibition back across the Atlantic treasures which were once part of our national heritage here, but which had gone abroad, as such things have been going in ever greater numbers owing to increased taxation. There is at 25, Park Lane an extraordinarily generous loan exhibition very largely composed of masterpieces from America.
I want to say one word about the relation between these bodies. I am not at all sure whether it is to advantage that the British Museum and the picture galleries should be embraced in one Bill. The British Museum authorities are specially nervous. Why? Because, for the most part, the British Museum's possessions are not, in the main, the type of possessions the lending of which overseas is altogether desirable, and, again, because of the special fragility of the articles in question. Take the Egyptian
antiquities—mummy cases and the like. It is marvellous that they have ever got from Egypt to the British Museum without further damage, and a good many of them were damaged in transit. Then you have the great Elgin Marbles, the ancient bronzes, and, above all, the range of ceramics. While some classes of pottery, if very carefully packed, run comparatively little risk, there are ceramics, including British ceramics, which it is proposed to lend, but which are of peculiar and special fragility and ought to be safeguarded most particularly. Then you come to the great range of illuminated manuscripts for which the British Museum is famous—all delicate works. The only paintings which they possess are of two kinds—the great collection of oriental paintings, including Chinese paintings, and the collection of English water-colours.
As I have said, I speak without authority, but I believe that as regards both the oriental paintings—the early Chinese particularly—and the English water-colours, the apprehension in their minds about any idea of lending is due to the fact that these are all a type of paintings that ought not to be exposed to strong sunlight, and certainly not to direct sunlight, for any length of time. Many of them have already faded, and, after all, the bulk of the water-colours are kept in portfolios, which are shown to students and to the public on application, but are not generally exposed, simply because of the danger from deterioration due to light. Therefore, the British Museum Trustees are in a rather different position from the Trustees of the Tate Gallery and of the National Gallery.
Let me come back to the reasons why I differ from other trustees of the National Gallery. I belong to the half that would be prepared to see loans of pictures painted subsequently to the year 1600, of schools other than the British. We have in Trafalgar Square 21 examples of Jacob Ruisdael, the Dutch landscape painter. 16 Van der Weldes, 12 Cuyps and nine Hobbemas, and of these only a comparatively small proportion are-displayed upon our walls, the rest being in the basement. In the basement they can be seen by students on application, in the company of one of the warders. There are stacked there in the basement some 500 pictures for which we have no room on our walls upstairs, and, when
I am asked why there should be a statutory bar against lending one of our many Ruisdaels, while there should be no statutory bar against lending one or two of our comparatively rare Hogarths, Wilsons and the like, I cannot see the answer. My argument applies to all the Dutch canvasses, because the National Gallery in London is particularly rich in Dutch paintings of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and, as I have said, we have comparatively little room in which to display them to the public. I hope that a generous Government will be able to provide us shortly with a little more room, but that is another matter, which it would be out of order for me to go into to-day.
Let me, however, say this about loans. The National Gallery has made loans, particularly of a certain number of these numerous Dutch paintings, from time to time to British provincial galleries, and last summer a few of our large reserve collection, as we may call it, of these Dutch landscapes were going the rounds between Bradford, Doncaster, Nottingham and the galleries in the North. We have a very considerable reserve collection of pictures bequeathed to the National Gallery, or acquired as part of the general collection, in regard to which I cannot see any reason either in logic or in common sense why we should be debarred by Statute from ever lending them to our oversea Dominions. Speaking as a trustee, I would ask why, if we can be trusted to select British pictures that may be lent for exhibition in Amsterdam or Rome, can we not be trusted to deal similarly with Dutch and French pictures? I cannot see any reason to suspect that we are people who have so little regard for the national possessions that we should be indifferent to all the considerations which come up when any question of loan, either in this country or out of it, is raised. I have said already that I cannot see why, above all, the Tate Gallery should any longer be debarred by Statute from lending the very fine examples of the modern French school which now happily ornament its walls.
In general, I think that a Bill on these lines is long overdue. These exhibitions are of immense importance. They are a real delight to ever-increasing thousands
of people of all classes and in all walks of life. Unhappily, most of our public museums are only open for a few hours in the day. Most of them close at four or five in the afternoon, and the vast mass of the public who care about these things, but who are at work all day except just on a Sunday afternoon, have little or no chance of ever seeing them. One of the great values of these exhibitions is that invariably they are open till late hours in the evening under specially favourable conditions. The appreciation of art is a growing democratic movement, and we should recognise that fact by assisting the public to see pictures in this way. In the next place any one of these exhibitions is a real source of inspiration to actual modern artists. After all, modern art is almost too much a matter of clichés, but, in the main, the more the work of the great masters of the various countries is known and studied, the more likely is modern art to keep sane, and the more likely is it to respect those standards of craftsmanship which it seems to be all too ready to neglect. These exhibitions have an extremely valuable educative influence on artists as well as on the public generally. Take the Persian exhibition. How few in this country had any idea either of the variety or of the resources of Persian art through the ages before this exhibition was held? Has it not been a new opportunity for spreading new ideas, new motives, and new elements into the art world?
I have already spoken about the great contributions to scholarship and the advancement of scholarship and the study of artistry that arise from these paintings. We have centred in the League of Nations a body calling itself the Committee of Intellectual Co-operation. Is it not high time that apart from the purely intellectual co-operation of the philosophers and the scientists, there was active co-operation in the art world? I believe that that can do more, perhaps, than anything else to bring countries to a closer understanding of each other. We now know much more of Persia than we did before this Persian exhibition, which has been of more real value in explaining the characteristics, the essential features, of a nation than, perhaps, almost anything else that could be done. I sincerely hope, therefore, that this Bill
will eventually pass, and that it will pass in a form which contains the necessary safeguards to prevent damage to delicate works of art, but which also is not so narrow as to limit the Trustees of the National Gallery or the Tate Gallery merely to British pictures. If necessary, I should be willing to see the British Museum either taken out of the Bill altogether or else allowed to have any of these safeguards that it desires; but to handicap the great picture galleries by limiting them so narrowly as the Bill in its present form proposes, is, I think, to pay too scant a measure of confidence and respect to their directors and boards of trustees and is, if I may say so, missing an opportunity of doing the thing and doing it handsomely.

Mr. MARKHAM: I am very much in favour of the Bill even as it stands, but I should be very much more in favour of it if the Amendments which have been introduced in another place had not been put into it. I have heard the very able speech from the Front Bench opposite, but I am not sure that any argument has been made in favour of the Amendments introduced in another place beyond this, that the trustees of the British Museum must be regarded as superior to any other expert opinion which may express itself, that they alone must be listened to and that any other verdict must be entirely disregarded. That is a fair account of the arguments that we have heard. There is one body of opinion which is even more entitled to be heard than the British Museum, and that is the Royal Commission which has just reported. They were unanimously of opinion that a Bill to this effect should be drawn upon the widest possible lines. It should not be too narrowly drawn so as to confine loans overseas to one category of art. They go on to say specifically:
In our considered opinion there is no danger whatever that a brief Act of Parliament according powers of loans overseas on the lines indicated above would lead to a rash or harmful dispersal of national treasures. Any suggestion to this effect must fall at once to the ground in face of the fact that a large number of institutions already possess these powers, but use them with an excess of caution approaching total paralysis.
On this question the opinion of an impartial, unbiased Royal Commission is more entitled to be heard than a Board
such as the trustees of the Btitish Museum, who are considering their own institution alone. What are the other expert opinions that should be expressed? We have two great voluntary organisations which, I think, are entitled to be heard on such a question. They are the National Art Loans Collections Fund and also the Museums Association. The latter is a very old-established organisation and represents, without doubt, the greatest body of expert opinion in the country. It has passed through its council and its officers a unanimous resolution favouring the Bill in its original form, and I am sure, if time had been given them for further consideration, they would have said that the Bill as originally drafted gave both to the British Museum and National Gallery the fullest possible power of prohibiting the loan of articles which may suffer damage in transit. The Bill as originally drafted gave power at any time
to lend for public exhibition in places outside Great Britain on such terms as they think fit,
any objects that are vested in them. All the arguments we have recently heard from the opposite side entirely ignore the purport of those words. It is possible for the British Museum or the National Gallery to rule out objects of exceptional fragility, objects such as paintings on wood and so on. I suggest, without any malice whatever, that the only reason these Amendments have been inserted is that the trustees of the British Museum are afraid to take the responsibility that they ought to take. They are adopting a real dog-in-the-manger attitude. Other countries have lent us of the best of their treasures without stint and without conditions and, when it comes to this country to take reciprocal action, we do it in such a churlish way that the gesture is hardly worth while. Our position as one of the greatest civilised countries in the world ought to make us consider this point and, in granting loans abroad, we should make it possible to loan everything that can possibly be loaned without damage, and such loans should not be fixed for an arbitrary term, as is done in the Amendment inserted in another place.
Another point that has been made is that any loans abroad of any kind might interrupt the student sequences in the
British Museum or the National Gallery. May I speak from my own experience as a research student? Some years ago, during a thesis, I had occasion to resort to the British Museum and the Public Record Office for manuscripts. Had they been away on a loan exhibition at Brussels or Paris or anywhere else, it would have been absolutely certain that they would be coming back within a short space of time. But I should have had this added advantage, that the mere fact of these manuscripts going abroad would have concentrated attention upon that particular phase of culture, which would have materially assisted me in my studies rather than limited me. That is a point for consideration when this student plea is brought forward.
In a Bill of this description we ought to consider specifically the claims of our Dominions, who have already been loaned specimens of many kinds from other great national institutions. Already 12 of our national institutions have power to lend anything they care to lend, and the Royal Commission states emphatically that not one single case of damage has come to their notice in the loans that have been made. Loans have been made to countries as far distant as South America. I cannot for the life of me see why, if any one of these 12 institutions can send loans to South America and get them back without damage, this plea of damage should be brought forward in the case of the British Museum and the National Gallery. They are absolutely safeguarded under the terms of the Act as originally introduced and. when countries such as Canada, South Africa and so on come to us and, in the case of Canada, ask for French pictures and, in the case of South Africa, for Dutch, we ought to be generous enough to allow some of our many treasures to go abroad temporarily. I can conceive no reason why in another place the Amendment was inserted limiting this Bill to objects representative of British arts or crafts alone.
I will give one other illustration. Take the case of the British Museum. As the Bill stands, not a single specimen of Roman or Anglo-Saxon or mediaval civilisation can be lent abroad. These are the things when it comes to loan exhibitions that are so much wanted by our
Dominions and Colonies. They have been able to make collections of their own of objects which have been produced from 1700 onwards. It is in these earlier specimens that they desire temporary loans from some of our great collections. This House should not be dictated to by the trustees of the British Museum. We have several other bodies of expert opinion to consider, including the Royal Commission, the Museums Association, and the National Art Collections Fund. Other countries have most generously lent us the best they could have lent during these past few years, and our position should be that we should do unto others what others have done to us.

Colonel ASHLEY: It is a pleasant change in these days of controversial Bills to welcome a Measure such as this, which, I hope, will soon remedy a long standing mistake in our national organisation. I cannot conceive a Bill more conducive to the appreciation of arts and crafts and to the improvement of our relations with foreign Powers and more likely to bring the Dominions and Colonies closer together than this non-contentious Bill. Up to now, apparently, the position has been that, while we can take everything from the rest of the world, we are debarred by Statute from returning the compliment, even though an overwhelming majority of us are quite clear that we might help art forward and do the right thing without in any way endangering our own precious possessions. I was not here at the beginning of the Debate, but, no doubt, speakers before me have mentioned the sending here last year of that magnificent collection of Italian pictures. What Signor Mussolini did safely for us, surely we should do for them. It cannot be said that the Italians can send pictures to this country safely and bring them back, and that we ourselves, a seafaring nation, cannot do the same thing. Therefore, I welcome the Bill whole-heartedly, though I am going to ask the Financial Secretary to clear up one or two points which to me are not clear.
Before the War, in the Budget of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), an excellent provision was inserted in the Finance Bill. It was that objects of art of national interest and importance
should be exempt from Death Duties, provided the Inland Revenue found that they came within that category, as long as the owners did not sell them. That was not only a relief to the very often overburdened inheritor of valuable works of art, but it was an extremely wise step from the national point of view, because it enabled millions of pounds worth of articles of virtu and art to be kept in this country which, if that provision had not been put in, would inevitably have gone to America and other places overseas where they would have had to be sold in order to provide these Death Duties. That was a very wise and statesmanlike action which has enabled successive generations of art lovers, English and foreigners, to visit the houses where these treasures are stored, to enjoy them, to be educated in art, and generally to appreciate the beautiful things of life, and in our commercial age to appreciate the beautiful things of life. This humanises people and makes them more inclined to spend their leisure in a proper and decent way. I welcome the Measure because anything that will stimulate sending works of art to exhibitions, which will stimulate sending them from this country overseas and to our Dominions, must tend to spread culture and to make the great mass of people more appreciate the precious possessions that they have in these priceless works of art which we still have in so large a measure.
I am glad the Bill leaves the decision as to whether pictures shall be lent entirely to the trustees. If you have not trustees to whom you can leave the decision, the sooner you have another set of trustees the better. There is only one qualification that I would make, though I rather contradict myself in saying so. It seems to me that, under the Bill, the trustees could make an indefinite loan, say to the Berlin Art Museum, for 40 or 50 years. I am not sure whether some provision ought not to be put in to limit it to 15 or 20 years. I admit that it is a Committee point, but it is perhaps worthy of consideration, because an indefinite loan, such as the Portland Vase has been for upwards of 70 or 80 years to the British Museum, may be all right from the point of view of the private owner, but there is just the possibility that we might find ourselves one day with a very priceless possession left for a very
long time overseas which the nation would like to have. That, however, is not a likely thing, and I do not press the point. As a layman, I am rather puzzled when it says that they may
lend for public exhibition in places outside Great Britain"—
that is the trustees may do so—
any objects, being objects representative of British art or crafts and produced subsequent to the year sixteen hundred.
I do not agree with those two qualifications. If it is good to lend overseas objects representative of British art or crafts, why should it be bad or improper to lend, leaving the decision in the discretion of the trustees, a bronze vase, we will say, dug up in some place in England or a bronze bowl? A very wonderful bowl was dug up only last year near Winchester, ancient British work, 2,000 B.C., and why such things should not be able to be sent away on exhibition I do not know. I cannot conceive why it is all right if it had been produced subsequent to 1600 but all wrong if it had been produced before 1600. You might answer, "Well, a panel picture painted previous to 1600 ought not to be sent abroad." I admit that that would probably be the right view, but you ought to leave the decision, surely, to the discretion of your trustees. Your trustees would say whether it was necessary to send a wooden panel picture dated 1450 for a long exhibition in the super-heated atmosphere of an American exhibition. Obviously, there would be great danger of it being cracked. I appeal to those in charge of the Bill to try, in Committee, to simplify it, and say that what the Museum holds may be exhibited abroad at the discretion of the trustees, and not proceed to make these, I will not say niggardly, but rather unfortunate reservations, that they shall be objects representative of British arts or crafts, and that 1600 be the datum line upon which you may proceed.
I should like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why the words "outside Great Britain" are put in. Does that mean that at the present moment the National Gallery could not send a picture to be exhibited in Belfast? [Interruption.] That is a most extraordinary thing. I could understand that you could not send it to Dublin. That is in a Dominion. But surely Northern
Ireland is part of this country in the sense that it sends representatives to this Parliament. When the Act dealing with the British Museum was passed, it did not exclude from the discretion of the trustees the power to send pictures and other objects to be exhibited in Dublin or anywhere else in Ireland, because Ireland was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. No doubt when the Free State became a, Dominion that automatically excluded the Free State from the existing powers of the trustees, but I cannot conceive that it automatically took out Northern Ireland and Belfast from the present powers. If my contention is the correct one, the words "outside Great Britain" are wrong. The words ought to be "outside Great Britain and Northern Ireland." Finally, I would like to ask a question entirely for the purposes of information. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Markham) mentioned that there were 12 public bodies who had powers already to send pictures overseas. Is the Wallace Collection one of the 12?

Mr. MARKHAM: The Wallace Collection is not included, because I understand that the exhibits in the Wallace Collection have been left under a deed of gift which does not permit of them being lent.

Colonel ASHLEY: That is a good answer as far as it goes, but I should like, if possible, the Wallace Collection to be included. The answer that the deed of gift specifically excludes the power seems to me to be not very consistent with the terms of paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 1 of the Bill because there we seek to override it. It is provided that they can do this if they can get the consent of the descendant, or if more than 15 years have passed since the date on which the object became vested in the trustees.

Mr. MARKHAM: The Royal Commission, in page 30 of Part I of their final report, say:
The Wallace Collection is a static collection, bequeathed to the nation under precise conditions, and our remarks here—regarding loans—do not apply to that collection.

Colonel ASHLEY: I am not denying the truth of the hon. Member's statement. I am trying to point out to the House that it is not a very good reason
for excluding the Wallace Collection, because in this Bill we take the power to override the express dispositions of people who bequeath things to the British Museum by saying that if we can get the consent of their descendants they may be lent and that when no consent is given they can, after 15 years have elapsed, be lent abroad. It may be all right to exclude the Wallace Collection, but to give the reason for excluding it that William Wallace said that it should not be lent is not consistent with the terms of the Bill. I do not in any way wish to hold up the Bill—I am entirely in favour of it—but I hope that between now and the Committee stage the Government will will consider the advisability of doing away with these two restrictions, "British arts or crafts" and "the year sixteen hundred," and making it a simple condition that the trustees of these two great institutions shall lend things abroad at their discretion.

Lord BALNIEL: I rise with some diffidence to take a view contrary to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) who has spoken from the Front Bench, particularly as he can speak with far greater authority than I, and because, in a sense, the case which he has put is more attractive, though I think profoundly less right than the case for which I am standing. I also feel that we are in a somewhat difficult position, because I understand that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has announced that the Bill is going to be amended in Committee. As we do not know what the Amendments are likely to be, whether they will be fundamental or not, I think that the House is in a slight difficulty.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: May I explain the position, because it will, perhaps, save the time of the House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Christchurch (Colonel Ashley) and the hon. Member apparently did not hear my speech. I stated that the Bill, as it now comes before the House, is how it has been left by another place, and that two lines—I think they are lines 12 and 13—
being objects representative of British arts or crafts and produced subsequent to the year sixteen hundred
embodied two Amendments which were inserted in another place, and that it is
the intention of the Government to ask the House to omit those two lines and to restore the Bill to the form in which it was originally presented.

Lord BALNIEL: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his explanation, and later on I shall have something to say about the exclusion of the words "sixteen hundred." If he will forgive me, I think the hon. Gentleman is wrong and the hon. Gentleman behind him is wrong in implying that the words "being objects representative of British arts or crafts" were not in the Bill as originally drafted. All I can say is that Lord Henworth in another place mentioned the fact that, those words "being objects representative of British arts or crafts" were in the original draft of the Bill, which was dated 9th October. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] In the original draft of the Bill—not in the Bill originally presented to another place. The hon. Gentleman said definitely, because I took down his words, "the original draft of the Bill." My only argument is that the Bill, with the exception of the words "sixteen hundred," is in precisely the form in which the Government originally drafted it, and I think that that is worth mentioning.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: If I used the words "original draft of the Bill," of course, my intention was to convey the draft of the Bill introduced into the House of Lords. I know nothing about what the Bill may have looked like during the various attempts at drafting it, but I am concerned solely with the form in which it was introduced in another place, and the words I used were intended to convey that meaning.

Lard BALNIEL: I am sorry, but the hon. Member did say "the original draft of the Bill" and not "the original Bill." So that strictly speaking, I think I am right in saying that the Bill as it now stands and unamended is as it was originally conceived by the Government. As I say, the thing had not been denied until the hon. Gentleman got up, and, of course, if the hon. Gentleman says that these words which I have mentioned were never in any draft Bill, I accept his word. It has also been approved, as it now stands, by a unanimous board of the British Museum, and, as my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench below said, by, at any rate, half of the trustees of
the National Gallery. The National Gallery have changed their view a certain amount in the last year, because in their report sent out at the beginning of 1930 I read the following:
The trustees of the National Gallery, in answer to a request of the Prime Minister, stated that they were unanimously in favour of lending works of the British school abroad, but were averse from lending abroad pictures of the foreign schools.
I think it is only fair to point out that opinion on these matters has changed fairly quickly.

Captain CAZALET: Is that by a majority, may I ask?

Lord BALNIEL: I can but say that they stated that they were unanimously in favour of it. That was a unanimous report issued at the beginning of this year. [Interruption.] I think I know what my right hon. Friend is saying, but I did not mean to imply any inconsistency on his part, as I do not think that he was a trustee then.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I was a trustee, when it first came up before any Bill had been drafted, and there was a division of opinion. We were unanimously in favour of lending British works of art, and there was a majority of one against lending foreign works of art. I was one of the minority on that occasion, and that was at a board at which I think, only about six or seven members were present. When a full board met the voting was exactly equal. The matter then came up for decision. There really has been no change of opinion on the part of those trustees of the Board who, like myself, have been continuously in favour of the Bill as originally introduced in another place.

5.0 p.m.

Lord BALNIEL: I cannot be responsible for those members who did not turn up at the board meeting. All the others were unanimously against lending-foreign pictures. In view of the difficulties and in view of the fact that so much is being done in the Bill, I think it would be unwise to extend the scope of the Bill. The Bill is extremely generously drawn. It allows, for instance, every English picture in the Tate Gallery to be loaned.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Hear, hear!

Lord BALNIEL: I think it does that without exception. It allows every British picture in the National Gallery to be loaned, with the exception of a handful of extremely rare pictures which the trustees under no condition would be able to loan.

Mr. MARKHAM: Surely the Noble Lord has omitted to notice that only objects representative of British arts or crafts are permitted to be loaned, and not only English. Therefore, a much larger proportion of the pictures in the Tate Gallery are not included.

Lord BALNIEL: If I did not say British in both cases, I meant to say British. I am anxious to keep the Bill very much as it stands, particularly in view of the exhibition at Rome which, I understand, will take place a few months hence. Under the Bill that exhibition could be made representative of the finest art that we have in this country. What has been said about other exhibitions is, in a way, irrelevant. I would much rather think that we were making this gesture, not as a return gesture for the wonderful generosity with which we have been loaned pictures, but because we believe that British art at the present time is absolutely unknown on the Continent, because we believe British art to be very fine and that it is good business that British art should be made known. Not only is it unknown on the Continent but, in a way, it is despised, and very naturally so, because I doubt if there is a single picture of the British school in any of the great galleries of Europe which would be of sufficient quality to be acceptable by the National Gallery.
If we lend British works of art, we shall be giving to the other countries the complete reciprocity which I believe they desire. The Italians lent to us Italian pictures and the Dutch lent to us Dutch pictures, and what foreign countries would like us to lend to them is British art. That fact is emphasised four times in the report of the Royal Commission on museums and national galleries. I see no reason to extend the Bill to include works of art that are not British. I do not believe that the Dutch nation wishes to have the Ruisdael pictures, which the hon. Member said are in the basement of the National Gallery. If we are to lend them anything, they want
works of first class importance. No one is going to say that works which are at the present time in the basement of the National Gallery are work of first class importance. They are pictures of some interest; pictures which I would like to see lent in a more extended way to the provincial galleries. There is nothing to prevent the National Gallery lending to provincial museums. I have, in the published report, a long schedule of pictures which went last year to provincial museums, on loan. I would like that list extended to the pictures in the basement of the National Gallery. Basement is, perhaps, an unkind word to apply to a large series of rooms which are not less than 8 feet above the ground. I would like to see loans of these pictures to the provincial museums, but these are not the things—let me emphasise it most emphatically—which foreign countries wish to borrow from us, because they are things of secondary importance. If they were of first rate importance, they would he upstairs hung in the proper rooms of the National Gallery.
If we are to lend anything, we should lend what is good, namely, British works of art. Therefore, to increase the scope of this Measure is unnecessary. I think it is also undesirable to eliminate the 1600 line because of the great antiquity and fragility of works earlier than that date. A safety line of what may and may not be lent must be drawn somewhere. The difficulty is to settle whether Parliament shall draw it by the rough and ready line of 1600, or whether the onus should be entirely on the trustees. My right hon. Friend will admit that a line has been drawn. I could mention 50 pictures in the National Gallery, and he would agree that it would he improper to lend any one of those pictures. If you do not draw the line by some general process, but say "British works of art below the year 1600," the trustees of the National Gallery and the British Museum will get entangled in the difficulty of making schedules and black lists, and saying, "This picture may go"; "That picture may not go." They may also have to make schedules and black lists of galleries, saving. "This picture may not go to that Continental gallery," "It may go to that Continental gallery." I see the most deplorable difficulties that
would arise. I think it would be much wiser to accept the line laid down in the Bill as it now stands.
The right hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest (Colonel Ashley) did not make it clear that there was a very real difference between lending English pictures and foreign pictures. The risks to foreign pictures earlier than 1600 are incomparably greater than the risks to English pictures after 1600. There are certain risks which are common to both. Let me remind the House of a few of the risks. There is the risk of fire, which is common to works of art whatever their period or quality. Let me recall a few of the fires that have occurred at galleries. There was the fire at Vienna, the fire at Dublin and the fire at Leyden. There was the fire in 1910 at the British Exhibition at Brussels, when the whole of the British exhibit was wiped out. Let me mention other dangers. There is the danger of travel by sea. One recalls the case of the steamship "Leonardo da Vinci," carrying a priceless cargo of Italian works of art to this country. Let me recall another case of a ship which took a cargo of British works of art to New Zealand, just over a year ago. That ship ran into a fog, went on to the rocks and sank with the whole cargo of British works of art. Then there is the question of theft. One might quote one of the most famous museums in the world allowing to be stolen from its very centre the most famous picture in the world. I might mention that at the Antwerp exhibition last year, from the British pavilion, three works of art were stolen.
These are things which are common knowledge and they are risks which, with regard to British works of art, we must be prepared to undertake, because we believe that it is wise to allow British art to be known abroad. To allow, for instance, a painter like Turner, whose works are very largely locked up in the Tate Gallery, to be known on the Continent would be an absolute revelation of British art and would amaze the rest of Europe. These risks are legitimate for British works of art. There are risks which the right hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) mentioned which belong exclusively to earlier works of art, and particularly to foreign works of art. There are risks to panels
which may be as early as the first years of the Christian era, works which in the National Gallery are kept at an even temperature by day and night, which are peculiarly susceptible to any variation of moisture or temperature, and which it is inconceivable should be allowed to travel. If they were allowed to travel, it is inconceivable that considerable damage would not be done to them. When that damage is done, when a crack appears, the picture has to be repainted and touched up, and that means loss of authenticity, and it means that the picture is further away from the original condition in which it left the artist's hands. That original condition is the thing on which students more and more rely, and it is a thing for which, of all the galleries of the world, the National Gallery is perhaps most famous.
On this Bill the British Museum Board is unanimous. It is unanimous in approving the Bill as it stands and unanimous in condemning it as it would be amended. The National Gallery Board is half in favour of the Bill as it stands and half in favour of it as it would be amended.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Hear, hear.

Lord BALNIEL: The greatest living authority on Italian painting, Mr. Berensen, is dead against allowing, and he has said so most emphatically, great works of Italian art to be transported when once they have reached their permanent resting place. Various foreign heads of galleries and experts take the same view. In the report of the Royal Commission it is pointed out that the French and Belgian Governments, after the Flemish exhibition, passed regulations preventing themselves from exporting this type of works of art. There is therefore an enormous consensus of opinion in favour of the Bill as it now stands and against the suggested Amendments, and I want to know whether the hon. Member has received any report on this matter from the head of the British Museum, the head of the National Gallery and the head of the Victoria and Albert Museum, three men who know better than anyone else the dangers which may be incurred by lending works of art. If the House knew that they were in favour of extending this Bill in the manner suggested, much of my doubt would vanish.

Mr. MARKHAM: Why take these three men only?

Lord BALNIEL: Because they are the men most vitally concerned. The head of the National Gallery is the man responsible for the National Gallery and the safety of its objects. The head of the British Museum is personally responsible—until last year he was responsible under a bond of £10,000—for the safety of the objects under his control. The head of the Victoria and Albert Museum is also personally responsible for the objects under his control. They are technical men, and I want to know if they are in favour of the suggestion, because any one would be very unwise if by voting against this extremely brilliant technical advice we in any way extend the scope of the Bill and add to what I believe to be the dangers so far as the position of trustees are concerned. One would have thought, listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford, that this was a Bill to limit the powers of trustees. On the contrary, it gives them powers and a discretion such as they have never enjoyed before. I approve of these extended powers because I believe the trustees of our museums are a most careful and competent body of men. But this Bill puts them in a very difficult position.
Assume that the Foreign Office is having a somewhat difficult time with any other country and assume that this country wishes us to lend a particular picture, which the trustees consider it is undesirable to lend. Their Ambassador comes to the Foreign Secretary and asks for the loan of that picture, and our Foreign Secretary presses the trustees to make the loan. I do not suppose that trustees would ever give way to pressure of that type, but it is most deplorable that they should be asked to decide a question of politics, which should be completely outside their jurisdiction; they should not be called upon to decide a question which may have a political action or meaning and which may have serious political consequences for good or evil. These are a few of the reasons why I sincerely hope the Financial Secretary will not move any Amendments to the Bill. As it stands it is the result of compromise and concession and to take it into far more debateable ground will be foolish and
wrong. I hope it will go through as it stands.

Major HILLS: The hon. Member for Lonsdale (Lord Balniel) has made an eloquent and instructed appeal for the Bill as it stands. The great force of his argument was directed against lending early pictures, and on this point he made a strong and convincing case. But his case and his argument was not so powerful when he dealt with modern foreign pictures in this country. He quoted, in favour of his case, the pictures that are now in the basement of the National Gallery, which nobody would want to see exported.

Lord BALNIEL: That was in answer to my right hon. Friend.

Major HILLS: I am going to take another case. There are two reasons why I am in favour of the larger Bill. This country for a long time past has collected pictures from all over the world, and in our private and national galleries we have by far the largest in quantity and the best in quality of pictures gathered from all quarters of Europe. In the second place, we have had three very important exhibitions in this country, and in each case we have had exhibits shown from countries other than the country of origin. We have enjoyed pictures from the galleries of other countries in Europe, and it would be rather ungenerous of us, having benefited enormously from these collections and received the most ample treatment from foreign countries, to restrict ourselves. For those two reasons, I think there is a strong case for the larger Bill. But I do not want to argue the general case, which has been conclusively put by the right hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore), and I should like to say that I agree with every word he said both as to restriction in lending and as to defining the sphere of lending. The trustees of the National Gallery and British Museum, if they had a discretion, are more likely to err on the side of restricting that discretion than extending it. The case I want to take is that of the Hugh Lane pictures. Sir Hugh Lane, a very fine judge of modern paintings and, indeed, of all paintings, a distinguished Irishman, thought that this country and Ireland were deficient in modern Continental pictures, and he made a very fine
collection of modern French works of art. He first offered them to Dublin, if they built a gallery, but the Dublin Corporation behaved, I think, very foolishly and let the thing drift on for years. Sir Hugh Lane got angry, and he then offered the collection to the National Gallery, provided an annexe was built to house them, as the Tate Gallery itself cannot hang any picture except a British picture. Through private generosity an annexe was built, and there this fine collection is now. Sir Hugh Lane made a will leaving the pictures to England, but just before he was drowned in the "Lusitania" he signed a codicil, which was unwitnessed, leaving the pictures to Dublin.

Mr. MACPHERSON: He wrote the codicil, but did not sign it.

Major HILLS: No, I have seen the codicil, spent several days over it. It was signed but not witnessed. I sat on the Committee which was set up consisting of Mr. George Barnes, Mr. J. W. Wilson, former Members of this House, and myself, and we decided, for reasons with which I need not trouble the House, that the will must stand and the pictures are now in London. That has always been a grievance with Irishmen, who consider that they have a moral if not a legal title to these pictures. Under the Bill, the trustees can only lend outside Great Britain, and Dublin is outside Great Britain, objects representative of British arts and crafts. That is a strong case. You have here a very fine collection of French pictures made by an Irishman, intended first to be housed in Dublin but now in London, and, unless this Bill is amended, no power on earth can allow these pictures to be exhibited in Dublin. That is a strong case in favour of the removal of this restriction. I should be inclined to remove the restriction of time as well as of origin, certainly to remove the restriction of origin. If we say that we will not lend foreign pictures surely we shall find it very difficult to hold such splendid exhibitions as we have been privileged to enjoy recently.

Captain EDEN: The Financial Secretary has made quite plain the intention of the Government when the Bill reaches Committee. It is now clear that the words:
being objects representative of British arts or crafts and produced subsequent to the year sixteen hundred
are to come out, and that the Bill is to go back to its original form. I join with my Noble Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Lord Balniel) in regretting very much the decision to which the Government have come, and, if opportunity offers, I hope we shall divide the Committee against this proposal. I would not like it to be thought that anyone in this House had a doubt that we should respond as generously as possible to the opportunities which have been afforded the British public in recent times, such as no other public has ever had the opportunity of enjoying. Everybody must be profoundly grateful for the recent exhibitions in this country and I am fully in accord, as indeed everyone in the House must be, with the ambition that we should do something to return that generosity; but, in my view, the best return for an exhibition of foreign art in this country is an exhibition of British art in the country from whom the loan has come.
My view of reciprocity, a fair and desirable reciprocity, is that it should take the form of an exhibition of loaned British pictures and loaned British arts and crafts in foreign countries. I frankly deplore the speech of the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Markham). He told us that if these two lines were allowed to remain in the Bill, we should be churlish towards those who have lent their works of art to this country, and that the Bill would be hardly worth while. I do not share his opinion of English art. I do not think that English art is hardly worth while showing abroad. Nor do I think that the offer of a loan of British paintings is a churlish offer. I think it an extremely generous offer, and that opinion is shared by the Royal Commission. The hon. Gentleman laid great stress on the report of the Royal Commission. There are these two sentences in the Royal Commission's report drawing special attention to the desirability of lending British art abroad:
The desirability of such loans …. is especially apparent in the case of the British school of painting.
Another reference of a similar kind is:
It is indubitable that British art is too little known and appreciated on the Continent.
It is too little known and appreciated by the hon. Gentleman opposite or he would not have made the extraordinary suggestion that when we offer English pictures we are offering something hardly worth while.

Mr. MARKHAM: I did not say that the loan of British art abroad would be churlish in itself. I said that merely to reciprocate in that way when foreign nations were giving so generously was niggardly.

Captain EDEN: I am glad to have that comment. If the hon. Member will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, I think he will see that his statement was that the agreed Bill approved by the House of Lords was hardly worth while. I would like to make one further point in connection with the loan exhibitions of foreign works here. It has been repeatedly said how generous those loans have been. But it must be remembered that those loans were made and the exhibitions held under conditions that were perfectly well known at the time. The reservations by which we were bound in respect of reciprocity were fully realised, and there is still a continuous offer of loans to this country in spite of the continuance of those restrictions. The reason for that is evident. Quite apart from the willing generosity of the lenders there is at least an advantage to the lending country as great as that to the country which received the loan. That is no doubt the explanation.
The difficulty in which I find myself if we take out these two lines is that there must be a limitation or a line drawn somewhere, and the question is where? We have had contradictory statements made to-day. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the New Forest (Colonel Ashley) said, for instance, that the trustees should draw the line—let them be responsible; in the case of the British Museum let them choose. But, after all, they do not want to have that responsibility put upon them. They made it clear that they would rather Parliament accepted it. The hon. Gentleman opposite, on the other hand, was rather
scornful of our being guided by the decision of the responsible trustees. He was also scornful of technical opinion. But that technical opinion we are not justified in ignoring. We should act extremely cautiously in this matter. We want very strong reasons for departing from the basis of the Bill as approved in another place, for it was the result of compromise.
I should dislike very much anything in the nature of schedules being introduced either for pictures or other works of art which should not be lent or of countries to which they should not go; but I do not see how something of that kind is to be avoided unless we retain the two lines in the Bill. There are certain things which in any circumstances could not be lent. There is the example of certain books which come easily to our mind. To-day more than half the first folios of Shakespeare are in the United States, and there are reasons for our taking special precautions in this matter. We shall need stronger evidence in Committee for departing from the original compromise. I do not think that the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore), as to the pictures in the basement of the National Gallery, is convincing. Generally speaking, though there may be exceptions here and there, the pictures which will be required for these foreign loans will be the best pictures that we have, and they are in the Gallery itself.
I would like to see a very much freer circulation in this country of some of the pictures of what we may call secondary importance, which are in the basement of the National Gallery. On the other hand, there are so many risks of damage that must be run by earlier pictures and panels if they are to be transferred from this country that this House is taking the gravest responsibility in departing from technical opinion on the subject. I repeat to the Financial Secretary that I hope we shall be told what technical opinion is on this matter. I lay the greatest store by it. If there is an error to be committed, it would be better that this House should err on the side of preserving these treasures for those who come after us than in taking a risk which it may not be possible to repair. In Committee we shall want better reasons than those already given for departing from the Bill. If they are not forth-
coming, I shall vote against the proposed alterations. In my view, the loan of English pictures and works of art should suffice.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: This Debate shows signs of developing into a conversation amongst Members on this side of the House, but, at any rate, if that is so, there is a spice of variety in opinions to keep the Debate from being purely a repetition of the same sort of statement or even the same general point of view. I ask for indulgence while I make a few comments on what has fallen mainly from hon. Friends of mine. Broadly speaking, I favour the Bill as it was introduced in another place, but I attach so great an importance to the provisions of the Bill, even as restricted in another place and as it now comes before us, that I should be most reluctant to lose that which is contained in the Bill in its present form if unable to convince those in another place that they may safely go back on the opinions they first expressed.
None of us who have had the good fortune to travel abroad and enjoy pleasant hours in the public galleries of other countries can have helped feeling, first, astonishment, and then profound and lasting regret, that British art is almost unrepresented in the galleries of Europe outside our own country. That is not merely derogatory to one of the aspects in which this country would desire to be regarded, and has a right to be regarded, as a country which has an original school of art of its own, worthy to set beside the national schools of other countries, but I think it has consequences in the present which are most unfortunate for British art, in that, there being no knowledge of the British school except among foreigners who have come to our shores—broadly speaking, amongst special students—our present-day artists suffer because they have no background, and they stand, not in their proper place, but as isolated individuals not forming part of any recognised school, and are judged, not by the standards of the school to which they belong, but by some other school from which they differ. I believe there can be no greater service to English artists of to-day—who certainly need whatever help we can give them—than to familiarise foreign nations with the great traditions of
British art, and thus place living artists and workers in their true position in the world of art.
I, therefore, attach enormous importance to obtaining even that restricted permission to lend abroad which is given by the Bill as it now stands. But surely we might go further than that. Surely the restriction which has been introduced into the Bill and which has formed the staple of to-day's discussion. is both arbitrary and illogical, and, more than that, is admittedly quite insufficient to distinguish between those objects of art and craft which can be lent without danger and those which cannot. My Noble Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Lord Balniel) sought to shock and frighten us by a recital of the risks which we run by lending pictures abroad. Must we not clearly distinguish between the risks which attach to the lending of particular works of art and those risks which apply to lending anything at all? If an exhibition is consumed by fire, if a ship goes down with a cargo of art, the risk is the same whether the exhibition or the ship contains a fourteenth century panel or a nineteenth century Turner.

Lord BALNIEL: I did try to draw the line distinctly between risks which were common to all works and risks to older panels, and I tried to say that I was prepared personally to accept the risks for British works of art. The dangers are two different kinds.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Then I am not correcting my Noble Friend; I was really confirming what he said. But I draw a different conclusion from it. I draw the conclusion that you cannot define by Statute what objects out of our national collection ought to he lent and what ought not. You cannot define it by saying that British works of art, however precious, may be lent but that nothing else may be lent, because there are some British works of art which probably ought not to go out of the country. On the other hand you cannot do it by fixing a particular date. If a date is fixed, quite obviously, that would not protect some fragile thing which ought never to be allowed to go abroad, while it would prevent the loan of some work of early date to which no such danger attached as might attach to
some of the creations of a later age or some delicate work of modern craftsmanship. Confining our loans to British art is not sufficient to protect us against the danger of lending something which ought not to be lent. Neither is confining our loans to objects created after a certain date a sufficient protection against that danger. A loan may be made to a particular exhibition which will be held in a building, and in circumstances, and under conditions which render that loan safe, but in the case of another exhibition conducted under other arrangements the loan of the same object may not be safe.
My Noble Friend the Member for Lonsdale and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Warwick (Captain Eden) are afraid of the burden which would be placed on the trustees by leaving these matters to be decided in each individual case by them. I have more confidence in the trustees. I can well believe that many of them would like to be spared these difficult decisions. I daresay that they would also like to be spared difficult decisions as to the spending of such money as they have available on this or that work of art. But we trust them to do these things. They are appointed on account of their knowledge and I cannot but believe that they will take better care of our national collections than any statute or schedule to a statute could do. I come to a point which was put here by my Noble Friend the Member for Lonsdale and was put by Lord Grey in some other place. A vision was conjured up of a Foreign Secretary engaged in difficult negotiations with some other country, or anxious to ease a situation of tension by making what is called, in our political slang, a gesture, putting pressure on the trustees to lend some work or works of art which they thought it improper to lend. As I have pointed out, it is not merely a question of whether a work of art is suitable to be lent or not. It is also a question of whether the conditions in which it is going to be shown and kept in the country to which it is lent, make it safe that that particular work of art or any work of art should be lent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes, but the trustees will not be spared these awkward decisions.
Pictures, such as some of our valuable Turners, will be lent to one country,
where the trustees are satisfied that the loan will be properly cared for, and properly guarded, and where all proper precautions will be taken. But supposing that there is another country, which is an exception in those respects, and that the trustees feel that the conditions there are such that they ought not to lend any works of art to that country. If we assume that a Foreign Secretary is going to use our national collections as a card in his diplomatic dealings and that he is going to put pressure on the trustees of the National Gallery to get himself out of his difficulties and to place them in difficulties, the question will arise just the same. Either you have confidence in the trustees or you have not. Either they are men of knowledge and of strength of character, or they are not. If they have not those qualities, they ought not to be trustees. If they have those qualities, they are the best people to be trusted with these decisions. To draw a particular line, to say that everything after a certain date may be lent, but that nothing before it may be lent, is to draw a wholly false distinction between those things which it is safe to lend, and those things which it is not safe to lend. To say that you will lend British works of art, however unique or valuable, provided they come after a certain date, but no other works of art, whether they come before or after that date, is to underrate the importance of British art, and, in many cases, to set up a wholly wrong test and guide for the responsible decisions which the trustees would still have to make.

Captain CAZALET: I find myself in disagreement with my noble Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Lord Balniel) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Warwick (Captain Eden) and in strong agreement with the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Markham) on these matters. I, like previous speakers, welcome the introduction of the Bill, and I hope that it may be possible to arrive at some compromise which will result in the fullest possible latitude being given to those who will be responsible for carrying out the Bill. I welcome it for a variety of reasons. In the first place, it will help us to continue those reciprocal exchanges of works of art which have played such a prominent part in the artistic life of this country during the past few years. There is one aspect of
those exhibitions which is sometimes forgotten. Not only do many people get a great deal of light and pleasure from them but they also have the result of revealing to our own people the wonderful treasures of our own galleries. I understand that the most popular postcard reproduction at the recent exhibition of Italian art, was a reproduction of one of our own works which has been in the National Gallery for many years past. It is only since the holding of those exhibitions that a great many people have learned to appreciate magnificent possessions which we have in our galleries.
In the second place, I welcome the Bill because I believe that there are many pictures which could usefully be exhibited, say, in some of our Dominions. For instance, I understand that the Dominion of South Africa is most anxious to have a loan of some of the Dutch pictures. Where better could those pictures go, and where would they be more appreciated? There are many bare walls at our Embassies and Legations throughout the world which would be very suitable for the display of some of these pictures. Quite apart from adding to the pleasantness of residencies and other buildings, it would be doing a real service as regards propaganda for British art to display some of our pictures in that way. On the question of propaganda I agree very strongly with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). In going round the galleries of Europe one is often impelled to ask, "Where are the English pictures?" One, generally, finds only a few unrepresentative British works in a miscellaneous gathering of other pictures which the gallery authorities apparently have not known how to classify, and have therefore placed all together in one room. I believe that the effect of British art not being adequately represented is far greater than one would imagine. I believe that it largely explains the idea which one often encounters in Europe that England is a cold country with very few cultured and artistic people. I believe that the bias against this country which is sometimes met with among foreigners is, at any rate, influenced by the fact that we" who, in painting the 18th century, hold a predominant posi-
tion, are not adequately represented in the art galleries of Europe and of the world. We know that the trustees of these various galleries are responsible and efficient people, who have been chosen because they are eminently suited to the positions which they hold. Having chosen them why not trust them?

Captain EDEN: Because they do not want to be trusted.

Captain CAZALET: My contention is that if they were such weak individuals that they did not want to undertake the full responsibilities of their office, then they ought to resign and allow others to take their place. What about the other [...] from which loans have been made to this country? In Paris and Berlin these galleries are, I believe, largely run by the State. If the galleries were entirely State-managed it is possible that political pressure might be used, although it is hardly conceivable. But in our case we have a completely independent body of trustees who have shown, by the healthy disagreement which we know has prevailed in their ranks, that they are intensely interested in this subject. They would be the first to resent any attempt on the part of any Government to influence their views with reference to the loan of pictures. I imagine that any attempt at interference such as has been suggested, on the part of a hypothetical Foreign Secretary, would be one of the best reasons for the trustees turning down a request for a loan. In the terms of the Bill they have sufficient power to determine what works should or should not be foamed abroad. The matter is "in their discretion" and is "subject to such regulations as they may prescribe" and "on such terms as they think fit." All those phrases appear to give the trustees adequate safeguards. If, in their opinion, a particular work is not suitable for sending abroad, they have the power to decide accordingly. I cannot see why we should doubt their ability to discharge their responsibilities considering who they are and the way in which they have done their work in the past, it would be ridiculous to confine them by some arbitrary distinction such as is indicated in the Bill in its present form. As regards the date of 1600, for instance, there must be in the British Museum examples of Sussex ironwork—

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The Victoria and Albert.

6.0 p.m.

Captain CAZALET: I am not an expert and I only mentioned that as a possible example. There must be many articles incapable of being damaged by a short journey abroad Just as Sussex ironwork would be incapable of suffering damage in that way. Simply because such articles happen to represent an art before 1600, the trustees and directors are not allowed by the law to lend this most interesting exhibit of a certain aspect of British art. I rather wish it could be laid down in this Bill that if manuscripts are going to be lent abroad, a copy of those manuscripts should be kept in the Museum, because with the photographic processes of to-day it is not asking very much that these manuscripts should be photographed. I wish it were possible for all manuscripts of any national value which leave this country for one reason or another to be copied or photographed in some way, and that permission should not be given for these manuscripts to go abroad unless such conditions were carried out.
I do not quite understand what are the powers of the trustees and directors at the present time in regard to lending pictures internally. For instance, is Ulster covered by the terms which operate to-day? I think you will notice that, in regard to the majority of exhibits, to which the Noble Lord behind me referred, which have been lent by the National Gallery to various other countries, they have been, shall I say, of secondary importance, and I feel that pictures, such as the Titian which was bought the year before last, I think it was, by a specific grant of the Treasury, ought—provided, of course, the trustees think they will not be damaged—to be exhibited in various parts of the country, because they have been paid for by the taxes of the population. When that question was being discussed, I asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury about it, and he said the whole matter was being discussed and that the appropriate time for a decision in regard to the matter would be when this Bill was introduced.
I hope very much that those who are supporting the present form of the Bill will give a little more trust to, and have a little more confidence in, the trustees
who are administering our national possessions, and I am certain that if we are introducing this Bill for certain specific objects, about which we are all agreed, we had far better go the whole way and introduce a Measure which will give unfettered discretion to able and efficient people to carry out their work along the lines suggested in the Bill.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I was somewhat confused by the speech which was made by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), because, although he was a short time ago a modern and up-to-date Foreign Minister, there are other opinions held as to what would be the position of a Foreign Minister under this Bill; and if I may quote by permission from another place, it will be found—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I will not use the quotation, except to say that it is there, but it was said in another place by Lord Grey, very clearly and definitely, that the position of a Foreign Minister might very well be difficult under such a Bill as this. I bring that out only because I think the Noble Lord the Member for Lonsdale (Lord Balniel), when he was going into detail on the position of the Foreign Minister under such a Bill as this, was then looking at it from a point of view which we, as Members of this House, would be quite justified in considering before we gave the trustees of the British Museum or the other museums too wide powers under the Bill.
A great deal has been said of the necessity for generosity on this question. No one who realises the present position will deny that under the Bill as it stands we are taking a very considerable step, and it is in the main accepted as a reasonable Bill by the trustees and the people who would have to administer it. In that event, as we are making an entirely new departure, is it not right that we should lay down at any rate one or two very clear and definite rules. Then on the basis of those rules, you will give the people in whom you have to put confidence, namely, the trustees, the fullest powers of carrying out these matters. For that reason, I hope personally, in regard to the two lines, 12 and 13, which have been objected to so much, even if they have to be amended, that at any rate as far as pictures are concerned there will be a very clear and definite
date laid down, such as the year 1600, so that you do not make it too difficult for those who have to administer the Measure.
I quite agree with what the right hon. Member for West Birmingham said on the subject of flints and bronzes. Quite clearly, they would be very much more easy to deal with, and I do not see why, when this Bill is in Committee, you should not lay down some definite departure, not on the lines of wide and long schedules, but some definite line which would enable articles of a nonperishable nature in the main, such as I have just mentioned, to come under an entirely different category and not be necessarily affected by the year 1600. The year 1600 is no fetish with me, but I think it is well to lay down this rule.
I have listened to most of the Debate with great interest, but there is one point which I think has not yet been mentioned. I understand that the position under paragraph (a) and (b) is this: Paragraph (b) lays it down quite clearly that whatever conditions were laid down in a will, 15 years after those objects have been handed over to the museum they can be sent abroad anywhere, anyhow. That is to say, that any objects in the museum at present that, have been there for 15 years, under this Bill would be able to be lent abroad, if it was considered right to lend them by the trustees; in other words, paragraph (b) for all practical purposes contradicts paragraph (a). Am I right in assuming that? It is a technical point, which could he explained, perhaps, on the Committee stage of the Bill.
We have had a very full discussion on this Bill, a discussion in which, with the exception of myself and possibly one other, practically everyone has been a real authority on this particular question. We have heard a great number of views, and while I welcome the development which is being made under this Bill, I think that when the Bill in all probability will occupy a most important position, it is just as well that it should only go as far as it does now. I say the Bill will occupy a most important place, because it seems to me to be almost certain that this Bill will be the sole contribution of the Government towards the question of unemployment, and, that being the
case, it would be unjust of us to-day if we did not give the Bill a Second Reading. It would be ungenerous, particularly as I noticed that even the Prime Minister attended the Debate for a short time this afternoon; and it would be just as well that this one Bill, the sole contribution of the Government to the troubles of the day, which will enable the British Museum to lend articles of interest to foreign exhibitions, should be passed. I shall vote for the Second Reading of the Bill for that reason and if it comes back without some very definite limitation laid down, as, for instance, in regard to the two lines which so many people want to cut out, I am not at all sure that it will have as hearty a welcome on that occasion as it has had from me this evening.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I can speak again only with the consent of the House, but I have been asked to reply to one particular question. The position with regard to Northern Ireland at the present time, without the Bill, is this, that the British Museum is limited to lending in Great Britain, but the National Gallery can lend in the United Kingdom. It is, therefore, quite clear that the British Museum could not lend to Northern Ireland. I am not a legal expert on constitutional questions, but I think it is clear that the National Gallery could lend to Northern Ireland. With regard to questions put to me from other quarters, they are really Committee points, and I think that when this question comes to be discussed in Committee whoever is in charge of the Bill will no doubt deal with those points.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is it intended that the Committee stage should be taken upstairs or on the Floor of the House? There are several Amendments that I wish to move in Committee.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: We are not moving to keep the Bill on the Floor of the House.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question about the 15 years? It is an important technical question.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: As I understand it, both these conditions must be fulfilled; that is to say, if the proviso
in paragraph (b) is satisfied, the satisfaction of paragraph (a) is still required.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

ACQUISITION OF LAND (ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION) (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill, which was introduced in another place, and has passed through all its stages there without amendment, seeks to amend in one small particular the provisions of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, with regard to the machinery of arbitration on questions of disputed compensation where land is required for certain public purposes. At the time when the Act of 1919 was before the House it was anticipated that many cases would arise for reference to the official arbiters provided for in the Act, and that there would be room for perhaps five of such arbiters in England and two in Scotland engaged whole-time in the work. Although different opinions were expressed on the merits of putting these posts on a whole-time basis, the view of the Government of the day was that, since there would probably be ample work to keep a number of them fully occupied, it would be preferable to put them on a whole-time basis.
The experience of the 11 years that have elapsed is that in England only two arbiters have been required, and, as might therefore be expected, in Scotland there has not been sufficient work to keep one fully employed, so that the State has been paying out about £1,300 a year in the salary and expenses of the official arbiter, and obtaining in fees from parties an annual sum far short of this cost. Actually the net cost to the State of each award has been about £73. The expenses of maintaining a whole-time post could not be reduced, and the fees taken from parties cannot be well increased. It seemed to the Government
that, in these circumstances, this was a suitable field for effecting an economy in State expenditure. The only way in which it could be done was by abandoning the whole-time principle, so as to permit arbitrations to be referred to qualified men engaged in private practice, whose services would be remunerated in accordance with the fees taken from parties under the existing scale. The scheme would thus be self-supporting.
This is not only a question of economy, however, because the arrangements as they have worked out in Scotland meant that under the Act of 1919, when the official arbiter was unable to attend to his work from illness or any other cause, the whole business came to a standstill. This has happened quite recently, and I am sorry to say that the official arbiter had a prolonged illness, which held up cases, and he has unfortunately died. Pending a decision on this Bill, no further appointment can well be made, and if, as I hope, the House is prepared to pass it, steps will at once be taken to empanel suitable men to whom cases can be referred. Some cases of importance and urgency will arise in the near future, for example in connection with drainage schemes of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland under the Act of last year. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members on all sides will co-operate in giving us, without much discussion, this very necessary Bill.

Sir FREDERICK THOMSON: I view this proposal with a good deal of sympathy. The right hon. Gentleman must he creating almost a record for this Government in coming before the House to ask for the Second Reading of a Bill which proposes to effect an administrative economy. It is true that he is taking but a small step, but I would commend it as an example to various of his colleagues. As he pointed out, the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, which has provisions dealing with the assessment of compensation where land is acquired compulsorily by Government Departments or public or local authorities, provides for an official panel of arbiters: a special panel for Scotland, and another for England. It also provides that these arbiters shall not be able to take private work. This Bill simply provides that that
provision shall no longer have effect, and that the arbiter shall be allowed to take private work. That is an entirely reasonable proposal. It is true that it was expected, when the Act was passed, that there would be a considerable volume of work to be done by the official arbiters, and that in Scotland two whole-time arbiters would be required. It has, however, been found that there is not enough work for one whole-time arbiter. It was hoped that this office would not be a burden on the State, and that the fees recovered from parties who appeared before the arbiter would be sufficient to pay for the salary and expenses of the arbiter's office. That has not been the case.
I have looked at some of the statistics, and I see that in the last five years there have been only 69 awards by the official arbiter. It can easily be seen, therefore, that that is not sufficient work for one man. The post is costing the Treasury a salary of £1,000, with another £300 for clerical expenses. The total receipts in fees by the Treasury are only some £300, so that the State is losing £1,000 a year on this post. The awards average about 13 a year. It is interesting to note that no fewer than 81 per cent. were for compensation of less than £1,000. In more than half, the compensation sum awarded was less than £200, and only nine were cases in which sums of over £3,000 were awarded. The fees charged are as large as can be asked from the parties. They are on a scale fixed by the Treasury, and therefore no more can be expected in the way of income from fees. The Secretary of State made a very good case for this Bill when he told us that the average gross cost to the State per award was £94. The State got £21 in fees, so that the net cost to the State for each award was £73. Working on the basis of 13 or 14 awards each year, that brings the cost to about £1,000. The reference committee which appoints a panel of arbiters in Scotland consists of the Lord President, the Lord Justice Clerk and the President of the Scottish Branch of the Surveyors' Institute. The Lord President, who is chairman of the reference committee, approves of the change, and needless to say, it is welcome to the Treasury.
As I understand the provision, if this Bill becomes law, a panel of part-time arbiters will be appointed, and they will be paid by the fees chargeable on those
who appear before them, and that, therefore, there will be no cost to the Treasury. As an economy Measure, though it be a small one, we on this side of the House welcome the Bill. The Secretary of State made another important point in favour of the Bill. There is only one official arbiter in Scotland, and if anything happens to him, unless the parties agree to adopt some other form of machinery, the whole procedure is brought to a standstill. The right hon. Gentleman told us about the illness of the late arbiter, who seems to have done his work admirably. His illness held up the work for some months, and there are several cases pending, but nothing can he done until a new panel is appointed. Therefore, there is a case for urgent action, and we on this side of the House will encourage the Government in this effort to improve the machinery. I feel disposed to congratulate the Secretary of State on having ventured to take this small step in the direction of economy.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I rise to give my support to the Bill. I never could understand why Sub-section (3) was inserted in the original Act. It is against the common practice in Scotland, where there is no such word as "arbitrator." The word in Scotland is "arbiter." The Subsection states that the arbitrator cannot possibly engage in private practice or be a partner of anybody engaged in private practice. My experiences of arbitrations in Scotland has been that in almost every case the arbiter in cases affecting farming is a farmer, and in cases affecting industry a man who is in an active industrial occupation. I am glad that the Government will save by this Bill£1,300—

Sir F. THOMSON: £1,000.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I understood from the right hon. Gentleman that we were saving £1,300 a year at least. I am glad of the saving. It is a sign that even late in the day the Government are beginning to see that even a small amount of saving may have a beneficial effect on the country.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: That is the effect of Liberal pressure.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I should not be at all surprised. The fairest way for arbitration is to have a panel composed
of men distinguished in their profession, and carefully selected by the President of the Court of Session; and when an arbitration takes place, the arbiter should be selected for a particular purpose and paid fees accordingly. I cannot understand why that principle was deviated from in 1919. I gladly welcome this Bill, which is a good and useful Measure, and will improve the work of arbitration in Scotland.

Mr. STEPHEN: One of the arguments in favour of the Bill is that it will facilitate a small economy, and the hearts of the Opposition rejoice greatly at the saving. I have looked up the original Act, and I am not clear whether this saving must necessarily materialise. The Secretary of State said that the people on the panel would be paid according to the fees, but there is nothing in the Act to show that that will necessarily be the case. As the Act is amended by this Bill, it will still appear as if a certain salary could be paid. I do not want to see a man getting for a part-time job practically what the previous individual got for a full-time job. The right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) could not understand why the Act had been framed so that the arbiter or his partner could not be in private work. I have a suspicion that the right hon. Gentleman was a Member of the Government who was responsible for this legislation. Perhaps that is why he could not understand it.

Mr. MACPHERSON: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. If he will look at Section 4, he will find that the arbiter is to be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament. This, however, is really an English Act, and Scotland was simply added to it. It is not really a Scottish Act at all.

Mr. STEPHEN: It may be as the right hon. Gentleman has said, but the Act does apply to Scotland, and it appears to me that there is nothing in the Act to suggest that this expenditure will be controlled by the amount of the fees. Then there is the point that the right hon. Gentleman said he did not know why the arbiter or his partner should not be in practice. I think there is a very sound reason for that prohibition, the idea being that the arbiter should not be
some solicitor who was, possibly, conducting the conveyancing in connection with the estate, or had same other sideline in the business. The idea was that the arbiter should have no business connections which might make him appear to be a partial individual. In this Measure we are going to depart from that principle. If the arbitrations over the acquisition of land were to continue on the limited scale that they have been in the past, possibly one might not feel inclined to make any great ado about it; but the Secretary of State suggested the possibility of there being a great deal more arbitration; and while I am not anxious to create any soft jobs, such as the arbiters seem to have had in the past, we ought to keep in view the point that the arbiters, if they are in practice, may possibly have some connection with the land that is to be acquired, and may fix higher prices.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: OT lower.

Mr. STEPHEN: Or lower. I would not mind that at all. The cheaper the public get the land the better it would be. From my point of view, I think they ought to get it without paying these people anything. At any rate, I do not want to see any one appointed as arbiter who, from business connections, might be regarded as likely to fix a higher price than ought to be paid.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: This Bill is not nearly so simple as the right hon. Gentleman led us to believe. As has been explained by the hon. Member who is the leader of one of the sub-parties below the Gangway opposite, under this Bill we are definitely going away from a principle. I am perfectly prepared to abolish all officials everywhere, and I feel that the country would not be very much worse off if we did so; but when it was laid down in 1919 that the arbiter should not engage in private practice the idea was to secure a man who was not mixed up with any of the parties concerned. This afternoon we have been informed that a panel is to be appointed from which the various parties concerned will choose the arbiter they will have. May I ask how many men it is proposed to put on the panel and whether the members on the panel are to have anything in the way of a retaining fee? If some 10 persons are appointed on the panel
and we pay them £200 a year each, whether they have anything to do or not, there is not going to be much economy. At any rate, it will be the sort of economy which those of us who listen to Scottish Debates know is the modern Scotsman's idea of economy.
Further, are we right in assuming that the whole cost of the arbitrations will be paid for out of the fees, that is to say, that there will be no cost to the taxpayer? If there is to be any cost to the taxpayer, will it arise in the shape of retaining fees? What has come out clearly is that originally there were two arbiters, and afterwards there was one, and that there has been practically nothing to do. It is just one instance among thousands of others where we could afford to cut down staffs considerably. May I make a further suggestion which I am sure would be popular with the great majority of the House? This is in the main English legislation, and if we are going to set up a panel of this kind why not have a panel set up for the two countries, with some half-dozen people representative of the two countries? Then the people of Scotland would have a really wonderful chance of getting an arbiter drawn from England, which would really help them more than anything else in this Bill. I would point out, also, that this is only one more Bill which we have had to bring in to amend Acts of Parliament passed by people legislating in a hurry. One of the things to be learned from such a Bill as this is that it is extremely inadvisable to hustle legislation through the House of Commons, because it only means a waste of much money until there is a chance to bring in amending legislation, and the very act of introducing amending legislation wastes public time. Though I hope the Bill will go through quickly, I trust that it will be adequately discussed. It is, however, a very fine example of the appalling folly of too much legislation. That is a point which this Government might very well hear in mind, although their legislation generally passes only a few of its stages and then is dropped, because they have no fixity of purpose in their minds.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Johnston): The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) asked two specific questions.
The first question was whether there is anything in the Bill which limits the amount of fees which can be paid to these spare time arbiters; and then he asked for a reasonable assurance that the saving under this Bill will not be divided up amongst these spare time arbiters. By Clause 3 (6) of the Act of 1919 it is laid down that the fees to be charged in respect of proceedings before official arbiters shall be such as the Treasury may prescribe. The Treasury have a fixed scale, an ad valorem scale. A day's hearing before one of these official arbiters results in a cost to the Treasury of £6. 5s., plus, I think, reasonable travelling expenses where these are necessary. The travelling expenses are to be paid by the parties to the arbitration. The £6 5s. for a day's hearing is the minimum.

Mr. WILLIAMS: What is the maximum?

Mr. JOHNSTON: As I have said, it is an ad valorem scale. If there is a long and elaborate hearing, with many witnesses, which may occupy many days, there is a different fee; but all the charges are on a scale prescribed by the Treasury.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has made the point, quite clear. I understood the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) wished to know whether the taxpayer was to lose anything under this new scheme.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I am coming to that. I was doing my best to answer the questions put by the hon. Member for Camlachie. I give him and the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) the assurance that, while the £1,300 will not be all saving, it is a fair estimate that £1,000 of it will be saving to the State in the course of a year. The hon. Member for Camlachie said that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland had said there would be a large number of additional cases, and that therefore there might be a necessity for a full-time arbitrator. What he did say was that cases of importance and urgency will arise in the near future, and, unfortunately, two or three of them may come on at the one time. Therefore, it is inadvisable that we should have only
one arbiter, because that would mean that the third, fourth and fifth cases would have to be postponed.

Mr. STEPHEN: The Secretary of State for Scotland referred to cases that would be coming on as a result of the Bill dealing with agriculture, and I said that might mean that there would be a good deal more work in the future.

Mr. JOHNSTON: It is not the case that there will be a great deal more work, but the cases may come on two or three at a time—my right hon. Friend was referring particularly to drainage operations—and as we do not want to hang up drainage schemes it is advisable to have a larger number of arbiters. The hon. Member for Torquay also wanted an assurance that the savings which will accrue to the Treasury will not be dissipated by being divided up amongst the members of the panel. I can give him that assurance very readily. The reference committee for Scotland is composed of the Lord President of the Court of Session, the Lord Justice Clerk and the chairman of the Scottish Committee of the Surveyors' Institution. Those three gentlemen have to select the panel. It is a panel which is absolutely necessary, all parties are agreed upon it. I trust the House will now let us have the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for To-morrow.—[Mr. William Adamson.]

PROBATION OF OFFENDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The use of probation as a method of dealing with certain classes of offenders was first given statutory recognition in 1887 by the passing of the Probation of First Offenders Act, 1887. Twenty years later this Act was replaced by the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907, which empowered courts to provide for the supervision by probation officers of persons
released on probation orders. The Act of 1907, with some amendments which were made by the Children Act, 1908, and the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, constitutes the existing law on the subject in Scotland to-day. Under the existing statutory provisions considerable use is at present made of probation by Scottish Courts.
In 1928 probation orders were made under Section 2 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907, in respect of 1,684 males and 500 females—a total of 2,184 persons, and there is no doubt that still fuller resort to probation could and should be made. There is reason to believe that, in present circumstances, many lads and girls are sent to prison who could have been dealt with more satisfactorily, from every point of view, in other ways. The whole subject was fully considered by the Scottish Departmental Committee on the Treatment of Young Offenders. In their report—published in 1928 under the title "Protection and Training"—the Committee say, with reference to juvenile offenders between 16 and 21:
Many, but not all, of these offenders—for there are differences in character and temperament—are plastic and at a receptive age. If it is suggested that some of them have little to learn and much to regret, we can only reply that we dare not admit permanent failure in any lad or girl between 16 and 21. Many of them are at a stage of development at which the tendency to crime can he diverted. They are very impressionable, and a prison, with its sad story of failure, makes a definite impression on them. This is inevitable, despite the devotion of governors and of their staffs. After a short sentence the offender is released. Prison has lost its terrors for him, and he has lost his repugnance for it. What is much worse, he may also have lost any sense of self-respect.
The International Prison Congress, held in London in 1925, expressed the hope that every endeavour would be made to substitute other penalties for short terms of imprisonment; and to this end recommended inter alia, that
the system of probation should be extended to the utmost extent.
The annual report of the Prison Commissioners for Scotland for 1926 stated:
It is very desirable that every expedient be tried before committing a young person to prison.
There are bound to be cases where probation is inappropriate—for example, cases where the offence is so serious that a severe sentence is imperative in the interests of the community. As the Young Offenders Committee says:
Probation is not a convenient substitute for committal to an institution, and it can never be a panacea for all farms of juvenile delinquency.
None the less, Courts have before them a serious responsibility in determining what is the best treatment for the first offender and the young offender. The objections to imprisonment, and especially to short sentences of imprisonment for relatively minor offences, are so strong that the utmost consideration must be given to other possible forms of treatment before recourse is had to imprisonment. This Bill, accordingly, is designed to improve the existing law in regard to probation in Scotland and to place at the disposal of the Courts a more effective probation system than at present exists. One of the main defects of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907, is that it contains no provision to ensure the existence throughout the country of an adequate number of duly qualified probation officers. It empowered, but did not require, burgh magistrates and sheriffs to appoint probation officers, and it threw the whole cost of any appointment made upon the local rates. The result is that in many areas no probation officer has been appointed, and an unduly heavy burden has, in general, been placed upon the voluntary workers who have engaged in probation services.
The work of these voluntary helpers has been of the most admirable character, and the continuance of their assistance is indispensable to any scheme of probation. But it is not right that the placing of persons on probation should, at any time, be dependent upon the existence of voluntary helpers in any particular area. The responsibility for supervising persons on probation should rest upon a systematically organised service of salaried probation officers, backed up by voluntary probation officers. Parliament has already recognised this main defect of the 1907 Act by requiring, in Part I of the Criminal Justice Act, 1925, the appointment, throughout England and Wales, of paid probation officers, and by providing for the payment by the Exchequer of a contribution in aid of the expenditure incurred by local authorities
in connection with probation work, including the salaries, expenses, and super-annuation of probation officers.
A Bill was drafted at that time to make similar provision for the setting up of a probation service in Scotland, but it was decided to defer further action until the Scottish Departmental Committee on the Treatment of Young Offenders had reported. As already stated, this Committee, which was appointed in 1925, reported in 1928, and its report—"Protection and Training"—gives a comprehensive survey of the existing law and treatment of young offenders in Scotland, and makes valuable recommendations on various subjects, including probation. This Bill now before Parliament has been prepared, after careful consideration of the Committee's recommendations on probation, and in the light of the statutory developments that have occurred in England and Wales since 1925.
One other matter remains to be mentioned. The institution and general administration of a comprehensive Scottish probation service will throw a considerable amount of additional work upon the Secretary of State. Arrangements are accordingly being made for the appointment of a body, which will be known as the Scottish Central Probation Council, to give advice and render assistance to the Secretary of State on probation matters. The members of this council will be persons who are interested in the probation of offenders; they will be appointed by the Secretary of State and they will be unpaid. A Scottish Juvenile Welfare and After-Care Office has recently been set up in Edinburgh, the expense of which is largely defrayed out of the Scottish Office Vote. The Edinburgh Office will be available to the Scottish Central Probation Council for the purposes of its work.
No provision is made in the Bill for the appointment of the Scottish Central Probation Council, as this can be done administratively. The provisions of the Bill can scarcely be regarded as contentious, and I hope they will not prove to be contentious. I hope we shall pass the Second Reading of this Bill, after a very short discussion to-night, in order to give Scotland what England has already enjoyed for the past five years. It will provide more and better facilities for the treatment of first offenders and
young offenders, and will form a notable landmark in the history of probation in Scotland. I hope hon. Members in all parts of the House will see their way to give a favourable reception to this Measure.

7.0 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: The Secretary of State for Scotland may be quite sure that I do not rise to criticise this Bill in any aggressive spirit. He has reminded the House that the first step in setting up a system of probation in this country was taken by a Unionist Government in 1887. The Departmental Committee, of which he has spoken and on whose recommendations his Bill is in many respects based, was set up by the late Unionist Government and, as he admits, the Bill itself in many respects is modelled on the first part of the Criminal Justice Act, 1925, which was passed in the last Parliament. We fully realise the great importance of dealing in a sympathetic and constructive manner with first and early offenders and, of course, with the young offenders. For that reason, we are very anxious to see the system of probation extended in any way in which it may be felt that it can be extended, in order that it may be used in every case in which it seems to have a chance of setting the offenders on their feet again. We have, however, a little ground of complaint against the right hon. Gentleman in that he has given us so little notice of the Bill. The Bill was not in the hands of Members before last Friday and, although he has no reason to anticipate opposition from us to this opportunity of extending and making more effective a general system of probation, we might well have asked for longer time in order that we might obtain figures as to the working of the system in various areas, and also might inquire how the English Act of 1925, which is very comparable in its structure, was working. For reasons best known to himself he has not left us time to do that.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The Nable Lady will appreciate the fact that she will have ample opportunity of raising these points in Committee.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I do not wish to deal with these points in any detail on
Second Reading, but I am entitled to point out that the Second Reading has been brought before the House at very short notice, which is all the more regrettable because, although the Bill is broadly based on the 1925 Act, there are one or two differences. The main difference between the two is the fact that the Bill proposes to make it compulsory to have one or more salaried probation officers, whole-time or part-time, in each area. The 1925 Act set up committees for each area who were obliged to appoint a probation officer for that area, but it left it optional to them to give them remuneration. The Bill makes it compulsory that in each area there shall be one or more paid probation officers, whole or part-time, and therefore dispels the impression of eleventh-hour economy which was caused by the Bill we were discussing a few minutes ago. The difference between the Bill and the 1925 Act in this matter is rather surprising when one remembers England's denser population. The denser population necessarily means that English probation committees—unless Scottish Members are willing to concede that the incidence of crime is much higher in Scotland, which I am sure they will not—must be prepared to deal with a considerably larger number of cases. Again, in many parts of Scotland, particularly rural Scotland, the population is so scattered that it follows that a person placed on probation is much less easily reached from one centre than he would be in an English area.
With regard to the first point, I have been able to get figures only from my own county, but I find that there, between 1925 and 1929, only 10 boys on an average were placed on probation every year in Perthshire. That is taking all the Sheriff Court cases, but not the burgh police court, for which I have not figures. There was an average of three girls placed on probation a year. In Kinross, which is required to combine with Perthshire under the Bill, there were two a year, which makes a total of 15 cases a year, taking boys and girls for the two counties. I am bound to say that last year there was an increase of cases in Perthshire, which raised the number to 26, but, broadly speaking, cases have been few in the two counties. For some years, we have had a part-time probation
officer in Perthshire doing Perthshire and Perth together. That volume of work, 15 cases a year, is very small when one remembers that the Departmental Committee considered 50 cases as the normal number for a whole-time probation officer. Between the two counties we do not nearly get to that figure. The Bill does not require whole-time salaried officers to be appointed, but one has to remember, on the other hand, that the Bill, quite rightly, requires that girls shall be dealt with by a woman officer, so that even our average of three girls a year in Perthshire would necessitate a part-time salaried woman officer in addition to a man officer.
One has also to remember that the Clause in the Bill which empowers the Secretary of State to require a superannuation scheme to be brought into effect for these officers, will undoubtedly cause a tendency to make the appointments whole-time. Again, though areas may combine to appoint an officer, the qualities required from a probation officer who is really going to do his work, and to be in touch with the juvenile or adult offender, are very special qualities, and it may be that two committees from two different areas will not agree whether one individual possesses the qualities he ought to have. We must also take into account the infinite variety of treatment these offenders need. We know how largely personality enters into the question. If a probation officer who is in touch with an offender is to be successful, he must have the right influence with him. One probation officer may have influence with one individual where he does not have the same influence with another.
It is therefore obvious that, if we want to make this system effective, even in a small area, we should have elasticity so as to have variety of personnel in order to allow for the individual. When we consider the scattered nature of our population, the need for variety of personnel becomes even more marked, because it is clear, in the first place, that a probation officer travelling from the county town of one of our large counties to some offender in a very distant part of the county would waste a good deal of time and public money in getting there, and, what is even more important, when he gets there, it is almost impossible for
him to have the intimate knowledge of, and real influence upon, the offender which is necessary if he is to be effective in probation work. The probation officer to be effective must be the guide, counsellor, and best friend of the offender. For that it is essential that the probation officer ought to be someone who is in constant touch, and who is intimate with the offender and not merely a person who comes from time to time to see how he is getting on.
This struck me some years ago when I heard a learned member of the bench, who has had experience of putting offenders on probation, speak on the system. He was rather doubtful of its value, because he said that it often happened, when a probation officer was seen coming down a street on his usual visit, that there would be a lot of boys playing about, including the boy wanted. Then there would be a cry, "Rin awa', Johnny, here's your mon," and everybody would vanish, Johnny among the first. That bears out the point. If probation is to give a new outlook to an offender, particularly a young offender, the relation between the officer and the offender must be an intimate and an informal one, one which can be taken normally and naturally and which does not create on either side a feeling of shyness, particularly on the side of the young offender. I can well imagine that a boy might be extremely shy, and, possibly, rather resentful in the company of someone who had just come to town to see him. Surely a probation officer to be helpful is somebody who meets him in a normal way, and who is intimate with him, quite apart from the offence he has committed. It seems to me that in the officers of the juvenile organisations which are every day extending their activities in this country, the Boy Scouts, the Boys' Brigade, the Girl Guides and the others—

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Yet the Noble Lady protests against the Russians organising on the same lines! The Boys Brigade and the Boy Scouts are making young soldiers of them.

Duchess of ATHOLL: There is nothing whatever of that kind in those organisations, as the hon. Member would see if he would join one of them. But the hon. Member's Front Bench realise the value of these organisations,
because I am glad to see that in the Bill they are prepared to include as probation officers persons engaged in social work generally which is an extension beyond that provided for in the 1925 Act. This intimate connection between the probation officer and the offender seems to me the kernel of the whole matter. Probation is nothing unless it is constructive. It is not a case of inspection, but of construction—of getting hold of these young people and getting them into some club or organisation, giving them new interests, a new outlook, a new aim in life. For that reason, it seems to me to be essential that there should be someone in close daily contact with them, and not merely a person who just comes on a visit which may be regarded as a visit of inspection. If that is the case even in a town—and the case which I have just given to the House was in a town—where the officer in question might see the boy any day, how much more will it be the case if the officer has to go half across Scotland, as he well may have to do in the case of one of our big counties? How much, for instance, could an officer in Perth know, if he is to be a real friend, of an offender in Aberfeldy? How can an officer in Golspie be of help to a boy on the West Coast of Sutherland? Or, if he is in Inverness, how can he be a real help to a boy down at Fort William, or perhaps even in Skye?
It seems to me to be essential that, in a country such as ours, provision should, be made for a variety of personnel wherever the offender may be situated, so that the probation officer may not be merely a formal inspector, but a real friend with a helpful interest. It does not seem to me to be quite consistent with the latitude given to probation officers to be members of any organisation engaged in social work that this obligation should be put upon probation committees to have salaried probation officers. I know it is quite true that the Government have not gone as far as the Departmental Committee wished. The Departmental Committee wished whole-time salaried officers to be appointed, but I doubt whether even part-time salaried officers would be necessary in all areas, and I think the
inevitable result will be that these officers will be whole-time officials more than friends.
Then I should like to ask if the county councils of Scotland have been consulted in this matter, because the Bill proposes to put upon them the responsibility of setting up the committees which will appoint probation officers, and it also requires them to pay at least half of these compulsory salaries, while I do not think we quite know how much of the pension the Secretary of State may require them to provide. I cannot help thinking that many county councils in Scotland, with the echoes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's recent speech still in their ears, may deprecate being obliged at this moment to incur the additional financial responsibilities which the Bill puts upon them.
Another matter in which the Bill makes an important departure from the Act of 1925 is in regard to the form of the committees which it proposes to set up. The English Act provides that the committees shall consist of justices of the peace for the area, but under this Bill the committees are to be set up by the various, local authorities, under rules to be framed by the Secretary of State. I should like to express my hope that those rules will require very careful selection of the persons who are to serve on these committees. I do not know that it will always be quite easy in the rural counties to find the right type of person. It will be very necessary to have people who are known to be interested in the welfare of young people and of their fellow men generally, and it will be essential, I think, to have women members. I say that, not only because I suppose there will be on probation a certain admixture of girls in every area, but because. I think there are a good many women in Scotland who are interested in this question, and, if I might venture an opinion, I rather think that in some areas there are more women interested than men, while in particular I think that sometimes there are more women than men who can understand the case of the difficult recalcitrant boy. I hope, therefore, that the rules will make provision for the appointment of women to these committees. Otherwise, I think that in some areas they might be omitted.
I am glad that the Bill has gone beyond the Act of 1925 in some of its provisions, namely, in those in which the advice of the departmental committee is followed. I welcome the provision which makes it possible to impose a fine on the parent or guardian in addition to a fine being imposed on a juvenile offender. I feel that, however much we want to bring into the environment of the young person the helpful friend, the helpful officer, the helpful club or other organisation, it is most important that we should not do anything to weaken parental responsibility. Parental handling of a difficult case may often need guidance, but parental responsibility and authority very often need strengthening. In one of the counties of which I have been speaking, parents have very often been required to find caution when their children behaved badly, and I think we need to be very careful to see that we do not do anything to weaken parental authority by too much reliance on the probation officer. We want to see the probation officer working with the parents wherever the parents are such that they can give help in this matter. I do not wish to detain the House longer. The points to which I have drawn attention are points which can be dealt with in Committee. I am very glad to support the Bill, and hope that the House will give it a Second Reading.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I rise to support this. Bill. I do not blame the Government for bringing it on suddenly, because, as the House will recollect, when, the business for this week was announced on Thursday to-day was to have been devoted to a Foreign Office Debate. The Government had to fill up the time somehow or other, and I think they were right in bringing forward a Bill, of this kind, which, in my judgment, should not be contentious. The Secretary of State for Scotland was very adequate in his opening statement. He made clear what this Bill effects. In short, it brings Scotland into line with England, and it substitutes almost entirely paid service for voluntary service. There is, I understand, a proposal, though it is not in the Bill, to establish what is called a Scottish General Probationary Council, and the Secretary of State made special reference to that proposal. I am glad that such a council is to be appointed,
because nothing is so important as to have a body of that kind, composed, mainly, of voluntary workers who have a well known interest in causes of this-kind, to guide the feeling of Scotland and to guide the destinies of the people who will come under the provisions of this Bill.
It is probably not inappropriate that I should be preceded in this discussion by the Noble Lady the Member for Kinross, and Western Perthshire (Duchess of Atholl), because no one has done more in the interests of first offenders and probationers than the quondam Member for Perth City, Sir Robert Wallace, who has just retired, in his eightieth year, from the chairmanship of Quarter Sessions in London. Everyone will admit that he has done enormous work, and this Bill, if it gets in Scotland an impetus such as the English Bill was given by Sir Robert Wallace, will, I am sure, be of great benefit to all concerned.
The Secretary of State very rightly pointed out that this Bill cannot be a panacea for crime. It is obviously not intended to be a panacea for crime, but it is a Bill which regards every criminal as capable of being reformed, and it wisely regards it as no longer true that, when a boy or girl or a man or woman, is a criminal, they are always to remain criminals. In other words, as the right hon. Gentleman very rightly said, the Government cannot admit a permanent failure. I believe that, if the statistics were produced, they would show that the probationary system has been of very great advantage to England, and all of us who represent Scotland hope that the impetus which is being giver, to it by this Bill will be equally advantageous in that country.
It is quite clear that we do want as many full-time officers for this purpose as possible. Some people object to voluntary work in this connection, and I have heard voluntary workers called all sorts of names because they pry into the business, not only of a first offender, but of the whole family—[Interruption]— and my hon. Friend opposite says that that may be necessary. When, however, a salaried probationary officer is appointed by the Court, he will, if he is the right kind of man, bring to bear a much more potent influence upon the
young offender than anyone else can. As the Noble Lady has said, it is well that those appointed to these posts, whether men or women, should be people of tact, because in so many cases they have to deal with parents, and it often requires a very tactful person to deal with parents who have an offending child.
It is quite clear that for the reformation of the criminal every expedient should be tried, and I welcome this Bill, as do all my colleagues, for the reason that it means, not trying a new expedient, but reinforcing an old expedient in Scotland. I see that we have before us, too, the question of expenditure. As I understand it, half the expenditure will be levied locally, and half will be taken, by block grant or otherwise, from the Exchequer. I see it is estimated that the Exchequer grant will be £9,000, and it therefore follows that the ratepayers of Scotland will be expected to pay £9,000 or £10,000. On the whole, if this Measure works well, that will be an economy, because it is a tragedy to think that a first offender does not get a second chance in life, and one knows from experience in how many cases, if the first offender gets that little help, that little chance, when he has begun his life of crime, very often unwittingly, he will cease to be a member of the criminal profession and turn out to be a good citizen. Experienced judges tell you that, when they were young petitioners at the bar, for the smallest offence against property; let us say stealing from an orchard, a man began at quite a young age a life of crime by a five years' sentence of penal servitude, and those men are known as laggers to this day. Rightly, a new spirit has entered into the life of the people of the country. They desire that in all cases, unless it is a case of exceptional badness, a man or a girl should get a fair chance in life. Consequently, I give the Bill my blessing, and I hope it will get a speedy passage through the House. I am sure, if it is well worked and the appropriate authorities elect the right men and women for this probationary work, it will be a great boon and blessing to the country.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: I should like to express great satisfaction that the Bill has at last been brought before the
House. Since the beginning of the present Parliament I have been asking the Secretary of State when he expected to bring it in. There can be no question of the enormous benefit that has resulted from the probation system. President Coolidge described it as the right-hand of justice, and the same phrase might be applied to it in this country. It has more and more taken the place of the industrial and reformatory school and the methods which have been used to deal with young offenders in the past. The child offender who is committed to the probation officer is handed over to a good Samaritan whose object it is to make him an asset to the community instead of a liability, as was so often the case in the past.
To those of us who are interested in the welfare of Scotland, this Measure must be a source of great satisfaction. It must be admitted that Scotland has lagged behind England in the matter. She has failed to face the problems arising out of offences by children in the way that England has. We hope now, with the passing of this Measure, that that state of things will come to an end. It is particularly satisfactory that the finance of the matter should have been put on the sound grounds which have resulted from the Bill. There is no question that in the past there has been a hesitation to put children on probation, because the expense fell entirely on the local authority. If boys or girls were sent for imprisonment, the Crown bore the expense, and it was not unnatural that magistrates preferred to send them to prison, where the expense of their keep fell on the Crown, than to put them on probation, where the expense fell upon the local authority. Some years ago the Judicial Statistics issued by the Scottish Prisons Commission lamented the state of things that I have described and pointed out that, until something like fairness was introduced into the financial arrangements, probation could not be expected to make headway. I am thoroughly satisfied that, although the expenditure that may result from this Measure may be £9,000 or £10,000, in the long run it will pay. There are carefully worked out statistics which prove that to the hilt, and I am satisfied that, even financially, Scotland in the long run will be the gainer by spending this money on the children.
There is one matter with which I should like to call attention, though it is perhaps a Committee point. Clause 5 proposes to introduce the system that now exists in England by which representatives of societies may be appointed probation officers, and that portion of their salaries which is paid for public work shall be paid over to the societies that employ them. The Church of England Temperance Society has an enormous number of its employés doing probation work, and there is a good deal of dissatisfaction in England with that state of things. One result is that probation service is almost entirely confined to members of the Church of England, and, however excellent the Church of England may be, it is hardly fair that, in order to obtain employment as a probation officer you should be a member of the Church of England. I warn the Under-Secretary that he may find considerable opposition to that Clause. If it is not passed, the result may be more expenditure on the Treasury, but I would ask my hon. Friend to have all the statistics and all the facts that are necessary to support that Clause ready for the new change. This, of course, is just a beginning. Many other things will have to be done to make the probation system a success, but, knowing how earnestly the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary are interested in the matter, I hope we shall see great things done at no distant date.

Mr. HARDIE: The Noble Lady opposite was rather disturbed in her mind on account of the wide areas that would have to be covered by probation officers in some parts of Scotland, and she argued that they would not have the desired influence with the offenders. I know that the Noble Lady in her educational work has always been opposed to anything being done by paid officials that could be done by voluntary service.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I do not know in the least what the hon. Member is referring to when he speaks of the substitution of voluntary for official service in educational work.

Mr. HARDIE: If the Noble Lady will throw her mind back to 1908—

Duchess of ATHOLL: In 1908 I had no connection whatever with any educational work.

Mr. HARDIE: I was just going to explain that. The Noble Lady came into the education business through the ideas that she is expressing today from the Front Bench. You have the ordinary non-official and non - permanent supervisor. After all, if it is an adolescent, the question of influence depends entirely on contact with the home. In my experience in the past in connection with educational work, when we discovered that the trouble was due to conditions in the home and we had to prosecute the parents, then came the question "What were we to do?" How is a child to get this parental responsibility? I have had bitter and disappointing experience of this problem. I have had to sit on committees and give decisions where you have homes in which the parents were absolutely incapable of looking after the child. Your difficulty is to find a home where parental responsibility will make an impression on the conduct of the offending child. There is going to be tremendous difficulty in getting that. When we are boarding out children in connection with the parish, we know how difficult it is to get the right type of people. We all know that there are many who are seemingly very efficient and very desirous on a money basis, and we have had some sad experience of that fact.
There is another difficulty that is just as serious. Whenever you get into a small community where most people know each others affairs, in the first 24 hours everyone in the village or town knows that this is a ticket-of-leave boy. In five cases with which I had personal contact, the home was good enough and the people had a real interest in trying to improve the feeling of parental responsibility, but the great fight that they had came from the fact that, when the offending youth was mixing and playing with other boys, the moment anything happened that disturbed them, the first thing that was flung in his teeth was that he was a so-and-so boy. I do not minimise the difficulty. The parents try to check the other boys, but you make an everlasting impression at that most impressionable age, and you are, in a lesser degree, continuing that impression.

Duchess of ATHOLL: As the hon. Member seems to be looking at me, I really must say that that is why I am so
afraid that the visiting of a whole-time officer may sometimes give the stigma that an association or boys' organisation or club would not do.

Mr. HARDIE: I think I explained before I reached the last point that no matter what you might do in that kind of village before the inspector came everybody would know that he was coming to a ticket-of-leave boy. The whole of the community would know why the boy was there. The visitation by a probation officer will altogether be different from what the Noble Lady tries to imply. His function will be to see that conditions are such that the provisions of the Act are being carried out. If such conditions obtain, there need be no visiting at all. Suppose that you were to carry out the idea which has been used in argument to-day and that you had local supervision. Whenever you get, say the honourable Miss So-and-so, who lives at the school house or the Manse, and has nothing to do but to become busy about somebody else's affairs, to look after a child on probation or anybody else on probation, you simply make it impossible for the community to combine in their influence in order to do the best for an offending child or adult. If we could get sufficient support in the Committee stage it might be possible, instead of the hard-and-fast rule of visitation, with all its prying by the local busybody—in the end, when you come down to these cases, you find that it is the local busybody who is doing this sort of thing, and doing more harm than good—to have a more satisfactory arrangement.
I can remember a man and his wife being killed as the result of a certain accident in Ayrshire. I was at school at the time the boy and girl belonging to that father and mother came under the charge of the parish. I can remember the boy and girl coming to the school clad in what was called Poor House clothes and the attitude of some of the boys and girls towards those who were previously their comrades and friends. Because they happened to have come within the charge of the parish, the boy, who was wearing a pair of old trousers, and the girl, who was clad in an old white straw hat with a black ribbon and a light blue dress, were looked down upon. It is
these things of which we want to get rid. While this Bill goes a great distance in that direction it does not go far enough in the interests of children as a whole or in the interests of the particular offender, who, instead of becoming perhaps a criminal and a charge on the nation, would, if given proper influence and guidance, become a useful citizen.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I think the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary of State will agree that on the question of prisons and detention possibly I worry them far more than all the other Scottish Members put together. It so happens that my Division and one or two other Divisions are in poverty-striken areas and that I and certain of my colleagues are brought into contact with persons who have been detained. I want to raise one or two points in regard to the Bill and to say that I should have liked the Secretary of State for Scotland to have tackled one or two things which it is very desirable should be tackled. The Bill deals with the adult as well as the young, but in connection with the provisions of the Bill we more or less have the juvenile offender in mind. There is no doubt that in 99 cases out of 100 it is the juvenile offender who is in mind.
I should have liked the Secretary of State for Scotland, when he was dealing with this matter, also to have dealt with the courts which try the youthful offender. I will take the situation in the city of Glasgow, because, although Glasgow is not Scotland, it at least represents about one-quarter of the population of Scotland. There you have a large number of youthful offenders. Only a few weeks ago I appeared at the court, as I often do on behalf of my constituents, to look after the interests of three boys who were charged with the terrible offence of setting a pillar-box on fire. Their ages ranged from eight to 11 years. They were summoned to appear before the Glasgow Sheriff Court. They were tried by the same Sheriff, attired in the same wig and gown, before whom the day previously an alleged murderer had appeared. These children were taken before the same Sheriff, in the same court, with the same officials, and the same police. There was no difference in
any way. I should have liked this Bill to have provided that when children, comparatively young in years, should be tried before someone attired in a different dress. I am not against the Sheriff trying them. In some respects, I would sooner it be the Sheriff than a local magistrate, but at least the Sheriff should not be attired in his usual court dress. I should like in such cases the court to be staffed in an entirely different way. I should have hoped that the Secretary of State for Scotland would have undertaken to have done something in this matter.
As to the merits of the Bill, I think it is good as far as it goes. I notice, as everybody else must have done, that in the last year or two there has been a growth in the number of persons put on probation by magistrates at the various courts. Recently, in Motherwell and in the city of Glasgow, certain of the magistrates, Labour and otherwise, have been much more pronounced in their views about the value of probation and putting people on probation. I think that on the question of probation the Bill, in some respects, is even worse than the Act which it seeks to alter. In Clause 8, Sub-section (2), of the Bill it is proposed to alter Section 1, Sub-section (3), of the Act of 1907. You insert a Sub-section to take the place of Subsection (3) of Section 1 of the Act of 1907. Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of that Act, as far as I can see, lays it down that a sum not exceeding £10 can be levied upon the parents where a child is convicted of a malicious offence, such as the destruction of property. Here you are introducing what, in my view, may become a very vicious Clause. You are putting in a new Sub-section raising the sum in the case of a court of summary jurisdiction to £25. I wish we had had a little more time to give to this Bill. I do not blame the Secretary of State for Scotland for arranging the business, but I did not get to know until 4 o'clock this afternoon that it was going to be taken.
When the last Government was in power I got out figures relating to both adult and juvenile crime in the city of Glasgow. I found, when I took my own Division of Gorbals and the Division of Cathcart—two Parliamentary Divisions within the same city differing but little
in size—that there were nearly three times the number of persons convicted of juvenile crimes in the Gorbals Division than there were in the Cathcart Division. In adult crime it was twice the number. I will dismiss the question of adults. Nobody is going to say to me that the boys and girls in Gorbals are by nature more vicious than those in the Division of Cathcart, or that their parents are any worse. You have a poverty area, shocking housing, shocking conditions generally, and therefore this sort of thing leads to boys possibly committing what is technically known as crime. In dealing with crime, I am anxious that they should be properly charged, but I am also conscious that on many occasions they ought not to be charged at all. We have in our poor districts a totally different relationship between the police and the child from what you have in the well-to-do districts. The time has arrived when the police, particularly in Glasgow, should be told that they must treat the poor as decently as they treat those who live in the well-to-do districts.
8.0 p.m.
I will take my own district, the district where I live. It is not a very wealthy district, but it is looked upon as being slightly better off than some of the districts. The police there handle the children with great care and a good deal of kindness. It is rarely that children appear at a police court. If they appear at the police court they are treated with every kindness and consideration. What happens in the eastern and southern districts? My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) represent the eastern Divisions, and I represent the southern Division. Take the west, Queen's Park, as against the south and the eastern Division. You have a totally different relationship between the police and the child. In the poor districts it would seem as if the superintendents and others considered that it was their duty to "gaol" people; as if it were their purview and right to plant people into prison. In the wealthy areas the relationship between the police and the child is totally different, and the police consider that it is their duty to guide and to help the children or the youthful offenders rather than to plant them into
prison. The time has arrived when not merely probation is important but when action before arrest is a matter of importance. Even if a person is put on probation it appears in the newspapers, and it is made to appear that the person is a criminal. It is, therefore, very important that the police should act with great care and great kindness in the poor districts. That is more necessary in the poor districts than in the other districts. I have visited the police courts, and there can be no doubt that the magistrates and superintendents of police in the better class districts have a different approach to the people who go there. They treat them with more kindness and consideration. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will see, particularly in Glasgow and in the mining districts, that instructions are given that there is to be no differentiation of treatment, and that the poor are to get fair treatment.
An important point was raised by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Lovat-Fraser) with regard to payments to churches. The Secretary of State for Scotland is embarking on a particularly dangerous course in that respect. I have in my district probably more religions than are to be found in any other district. I represent Jews, Poles, Catholics, Protestants, and people of no religion. There are all sorts of religions there, and yet I have known people to get into trouble. If the Secretary of State embarks upon this question of payment to churches in my Division, he will embark on a very dangerous and very difficult problem. Imagine making payments to a, Jewish society or to other religious bodies. It would give rise to very serious and very dangerous repercussions, and not merely in the town districts. Do not forget what might happen in the Highlands, where you find portions of Catholic populations still remaining. What would happen if payments were to be made only to some other religious body? Even if part-time people have to be appointed, they ought to be appointed without any religious qualification.
My view is that the appointments, wherever possible, should be full-time appointments. Part-time appointments are undesirable. What happens between the offender, whether adult or juvenile,
and the probation officer ought to be confidential. The person who is charged with a crime ought to have absolute confidence in his conversation with the probation officer, and you can never have that with a voluntary person or part-time officer in the same way that you can have confidence in a full-time officer. The person who is a full-time officer is usually subject to a local authority and exercises greater care than a person appointed on a part-time basis. Wherever you have a full-time officer definitely appointed and trained for the work and responsible to the public authority, you probably get a more careful person. The full-time officer is subject much more easily to scrutiny by the local authority. Therefore, far from encouraging part-time employment, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will encourage full-time employment.
I welcome the Bill as a very small step forward, but I maintain that prevention is much better than probation. It is the poverty question over again. It is the poor areas that are mostly concerned. Probationers are seldom needed in the well-to-do districts. If the Government would do something to raise the incomes of the poor people, the difficulty would be overcome. The trouble is that the poor people are unemployed. The have no income. They have no place where they can go; they are even denied the right of attending a cinema or music hall. They are being driven to the street corner, where they are labelled gangsters and gaol birds. Let the Government tackle the question of finding incomes for the homes of the poor. People get into gaol because they are poor. If they had more income, such as the well-to-do and the middle class Or comfortable class, they would not need health visitors or probation officers, whether part-time or full-time, visiting them, because they would be as capable of looking after themselves as any other section of the community.

Sir THOMAS INSKIP: I share a good deal of what the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has said about the Bill. No one in any part of the House desires to prevent the Bill passing into law. It is a very small effort to help the young people, of whom we naturally think in connection with probation. I should have thought that a great deal more might be done if the Secretary of
State for Scotland had really put his hand to the task of bringing about some alteration of the law on the lines proposed by the Departmental Committee, of which he was a member, although he was unable to sign the report, owing to absence. This Bill is a skeleton and makes certain provisions in connection with probation which will hardly touch the problem of child crime. My own view about the offences which children commit against the law is that we ought to get out of the habit of thinking of them as crimes, and try to understand that the offences which children, especially in our great cities, commit are what in a different walk of life we should call mischief.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Horse-play.

Sir T. INSKIP: Or horse-play, as the hon. Member suggests. It is for that reason that I entirely disagree with the hon. Member for Gorbals and the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) as to their preference for full-time salaried probation officers. What we really want in order to prevent mischief or horse-play becoming crime is to give these young people somebody to whom they may look as a friend, counsellor and guide through the difficult years of youth. This Bill only touches the question of probation officers from the point of view of the establishment of a class of officials, who are to deal with these children as if they were criminals. I will not say that the probation system in England has been a great success; it has been a success so far as it goes; but unless you get down a little further than the establishment of a new system of officialdom you will not really do very much to help the young criminals—if I am to use that word, although I would prefer not to use it—with whom the House is dealing in this Bill. The probation officer is much more likely to be the friend and counsellor whom we desire if he is a voluntary officer. The moment you have a salaried one you immediately get into the region of the administration of the police, because he is an official who has certain duties to perform, with the eyes of his superior officers upon him.
If you have a voluntary probation officer, you get someone who is doing the work for love of the task and for love of the person whose welfare is in question. I do not believe that if you have
a voluntary probation officer you will have any lack of necessary secrecy. If you have a salaried probation officer paying the frequent visits which I suppose he will have to pay, if his duties are performed, you get inevitably the publicity which hon. Members opposite do not desire. The report to which I have referred points out the undesirability of giving any particular probation officer more than a certain number of cases. I think that they recommend that the number of cases that one probationer officer should undertake, is 50. It would be much more satisfactory that any person who takes up the duties of a probation officer should have, perhaps, six or 12 cases. By that means you would prevent the publicity which would be caused by the frequent appearance of the probation officer who has as many as 50 cases. If you can get a number of men and women interested in child life, prepared to undertake the care of the welfare of these young people who come into conflict with the law, but who cannot be said to be criminals, you would do much more for the young people than if you establish a number of officers, paid by the State in part, whose activities are known to be connected with the criminal law.
The hon. Member for Gorbals suggested that the real way of dealing with this problem was to redistribute the wealth in such a way that the poor would have the same opportunities as the rich. That may he an ideal, but if we have to wait until that day comes about for dealing with these young people who come into conflict with the law, I am afraid that many of us will see nothing done for these young people.

Mr. STEPHEN: Do not be too sure about that.

Sir T. INSKIP: There is a great deal that the right hon. Gentleman can do before that day comes about, if ever it does come about. If we are to talk about lack of opportunities for the poor, the right hon. Gentleman might encourage the giving of opportunities which the poor would enjoy if the Government were to be a little more sympathetic. For instance, the report to which I have referred states that such associations as guides, scouts and cadet corps are useful places where young people can learn those habits of discipline and loyalty
which will prevent them from getting into conflict with the law; but the Government has shown no disposition, indeed, they have refused to show any disposition to encourage cadet corps, which many lads have joined, with profit to themselves and with advantage to the community. The report also made reference to the desirability of playing fields. If anything will keep young people from coming into conflict with the law, it is giving them opportunities to play, and disport themselves. Yet, a little while ago, when an effort was made by the National Playing Fields Association to increase the number of playing fields, the Minister of Health in England showed a hostility to the de-rating proposals—

Mr. KIRKWOOD: It is the landlords that are to blame.

Sir T. INSKIP: —contained in a Bill which would have made it more certain that poor boys would have more playing grounds in which to learn and enjoy sports. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs says that it is the landlords who are to blame. He must be in complete ignorance of the proposals in the Act or the objections which the Minister of Health took to the Measure during its progress. These are some practical ways to assist young people not to become criminals. In the first place, provide them with opportunities of social recreation and comradeship which are connected with cadet corps, boy scouts and girl guides and, in the second place, give them playing fields. Encourage them to find friends in what are called the probation officers. In that way you would begin to clothe the skeleton which the right hon. Gentleman is offering to the House with flesh and blood. The same report to which I have so often referred makes proposals which the Secretary of State for Scotland has not seen fit to include in this Bill. For instance, they propose that there should be a simplification of the probation bond which young people might understand more easily than the rather complicated legal provisions of the existing law, and they suggest that there should be a bond which would be appropriate to the young boy. For some reason the right hon. Gentleman has not seen fit to include obviously common sense proposals of that sort within the four corners of the Bill. Another proposal was that powers should be taken to re-
quire a person to make some sort of deposit as a guarantee that he would provide the necessary control over his son instead of leaving it to the imposition of a fine when the son has committed some damage to property or to the community. The right hon. Gentleman has not included that proposal in the Bill.
My complaint is that the Bill concentrates far too much upon the provision of a salary for a number of extra officials. If the night hon. Gentleman had shown more imagination and taken a little more time to study the report of the Committee of which he was a member, and had included many of their proposals in the Bill, it would have been a far better and bigger Measure. Let no one say that this House has had no time to consider proposals of this sort. This House has been engaged upon Measures which have nothing to do with the life of the people but which have had as their object the conciliation of some group or section of the supporters of the Government. If the right hon. Gentleman had spent his energies in doing something for the childhood of this nation by putting into law the proposals of the Committee which sat in 1928 he would have erected a monument which would have made his name gratefully remembered by the youth of this country. Here we are dealing with this Bill in these circumstances because the Government had to find a way of filling up the gap consequent upon their inability to make proper arrangements for the business of the House, and in circumstances when complaints have been made by hon. Members that they have not had time to consider the provisions of this Bill with that fullness and attention which they desire to give to them. I do not know what opportunities there may be in the Scottish Committee upstairs to improve and extend this Bill, I am afraid I shall not be eligible to be a Member of that Committee—

Mr. KIRKWOOD: We will welcome you!

Sir T. INSKIP: I have been a magistrate in Scotland for a good many years although I have never been called upon to perform any duties. The hon. Member for Gorbals has referred to the absence of any proposals for the consti-
tution of juvenile courts. Everybody knows that Scotland has been far behind England in the matter of juvenile courts. In this Bill we are dealing with probation offenders and there is not a single word in it about juvenile courts or a single word to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman intends to rearrange the duties of the sheriff or the magistrate, or make any recommendations which will enable juvenile courts to be established and thus prevent the young coming into contact with the sordid facts of police courts and criminal tribunals. I hope that when he is relieved, as he is in process of being relieved, of the necessity of considering what they call first-class measures he will perhaps take this Measure and make it a first-class Measure, so that the children of his native land may not be driven into contact with the administration of the ordinary criminal law.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Although I have been very many years in Scotland I have not yet reached the dignity of a magistrate, like the hon. and learned Member, but as one who has spent 22 years in the work of administrative bodies dealing with the life and welfare of the youth of Scotland I welcome this Bill. Not that it is perfect by a long long way, but I believe—I am speaking on behalf of those associated with the administration of education particularly—that Members of administrative bodies welcome this Bill and particularly its reference to probation as far as juvenile and young persons are concerned. With reference to probation officers. Despite what the hon. and learned Member has said I do not believe that you can get the best results out of voluntary workers who may be appointed as probation officers; I do not deny that there are a few single-minded persons who do good and useful service in that direction, but for every one of that kind you would get two or three who are really "nosey-parkers," that type of individual who the less they have of a family, or if they have no family at all, or if they have never married, are usually able to tell the head of a large family how best to deal with children. That is the experience. I have met them for 22 years, and if you are to get the best results out of a probation system you must not have voluntary workers.
I do not suggest that you can get perfection by an expenditure of £18,000 and I feel sure that the hon. Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) was using the economy argument not necessarily to suggest that we ought not to spend this £9,000 of the national money plus the £9,000 drawn from local rates in Scotland for dealing with these young offenders.

Duchess of ATHOLL: What I said was that in several areas I did not think it would be necessary to have a salaried officer.

Mr. WESTWOOD: She was not seriously suggesting that we should not spend this sum of money at all. Indeed, I think the facts of the case will justify an even larger expenditure. It is far better to spend £18,000 in keeping adults but mainly juveniles under this Bill, out of prison, out of a Borstal institution and industrial asylums and reformatories, rather than spend money in keeping them in custody, with the taint of prison life upon them afterwards, ultimately leading them to a life of crime in which we should have to pay anything from £2 to £3 per week to keep them in prison. It is much better to spend money in their youth and give them a decent chance of life. I believe that in appointing probation officers, we shall have to choose those possessing the greatest tact imaginable. The probationer will not be an individual who will be anxious to visit the homes. I understand that in England there is very little, if any, visiting of the homes by the whole-time probation officers. When a person sees a child he must not be in a position to say, "Here is a child who has been let out of a reformatory, and here is someone coming to look after him." The tactful officer will arrange to meet the individual, and will be very seldom known as a probation officer, even in the locality. It will be his duty to give advice to the child, and occasionally to the parents.
Take Clause 5 of the Bill. I think we would be very wise if we used only to the minimum the so-called voluntary organisations that we have. I am speaking now with the experience of voluntary organisations that have been brought into administration in Scotland. I have in mind the Blind Persons Act, under
which blind persons are not getting the justice that they would get if the administration was solely in the hands of the local administrative body. I hope that there will be a minimum use, if not an entire discontinuance, of the service of the voluntary associations. Then on the probation committee there must be a minimum of two women so that the point of view of the womenfolk can be expressed. Women are often far more tactful than men in dealing with youthful offenders. There is the point mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). This Bill will not be complete unless Scotland gets the same conditions as England in connection with juvenile courts. There are juvenile courts in Scotland at the present time, but there is no juvenile court in the county of Midlothian, or in the county of Peebles, or in the county on whose administrative bodies I work now.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Certain charges in the case of children must go to the court which is presided over by the sheriff. It is called a children's court, but in all its atmosphere and in its judgment it is a criminal court.

Mr. WESTWOOD: That is my point. We in Scotland have not got the same provision for dealing with child delinquents as they have in England. There ought not to be the atmosphere of a police court about these juvenile courts, nor ought there to be an atmosphere of crime in dealing with young persons under 17 years of age. This Bill will fail to do its work unless it sets up in Scotland juvenile courts with full power to deal with the young. In these juvenile courts we must have women magistrates. That is a subject which the Secretary for Scotland must take into consideration. He must try to change the law, if necessary, so that we can have more women justices in Scotland. The only way to do that is for the Secretary of State for Scotland, and not an English Lord Chancellor, to have the right to appoint justices. I wish the Bill every success. I trust that the beneficent powers contained in the Bill will be used to the full.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip) rather gave us the impression that he was totally unaware
that in Scotland there was anything in the nature of a juvenile court, and that while such courts were operating in England under the Act, of 1908, they did not operate similarly in Scotland.

Sir T. INSKIP: I did not say that.

Mr. JOHNSTON: That was the impression that the hon. and learned Gentleman gave us. I speak from some personal experience of the matter. When I was a magistrate, now many years ago, I never recollected any juvenile offender having been tried in the police court in my town, unless in a juvenile court with the Press and the police excluded. It is not correct to say that the Children Act of 1908 has been operated in England and not in Scotland.

Sir T. INSKIP: The hon. Gentleman must not fasten on me statements which I did not make. I said that Scotland was far behind England in the way in which juvenile courts were administered, and if the Under-Secretary will take the opportunity of reading the report to which I referred, he will find set out categorically the way in which Scotland does come behind England, and that even in the sheriff courts the children do not get the advantage of what is called the juvenile court.

Mr. JOHNSTON: What the hon. and learned Gentleman said was that there were no juvenile courts in Scotland.

Sir T. INSKIP: No, I did not.

Mr. JOHNSTON: If the hon. and learned Gentleman did not say that, I can only repeat that that was the impression that he created in my mind. Where this Bill has been attacked, it has been attacked, not for what is in it so much as for what is not in it. Hon. Gentlemen have expressed a desire that the whole atmosphere of the courts should be changed. My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said quite truly that the great bulk of crime in this country is due to poverty. With that I agree. But what we are dealing with in this Bill is the recommendations that were made by a committee set up a year or two ago to deal with the question of the protection and training very largely of young offenders in Scotland. Is there any need for the Bill, and, if so, what? I have here a letter which I received this morning from a gentleman
who probably knows more about this subject than any other man living. I refer to Major Speir, who has devoted his life and his fortune to this kind of work, and, in connection with the Borstal Visiting Committees has done a great deal on behalf of juvenile offenders. Within recent months this gentleman has discovered in the prisons of Glasgow a number of cases of which I give the House one example. In the Barlinnie Prison in Glasgow he found a lad of 17 who had been an omnibus conductor and who had been fined two guineas, with the alternative of 20 days' imprisonment, for allowing his vehicle to become overcrowded. The owner was driving the omnibus at the time, but this lad, who had not the means of paying the fine, was sent to prison.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: What is the name of the judge?

Mr. JOHNSTON: I am only stating to the House what is mentioned in this letter.

Sir T. INSKIP: Why does not the juvenile court function?

Mr. JOHNSTON: I did not say that the case was tried at a juvenile court. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would do me the honour of listening to what I am saying he would realise that my point is that it is not true to say that in no case are juvenile courts operating in Scotland. I am adding that there is a necessity for this Bill and that one of the reasons for it is because the protection that is given to these juvenile offenders has been grossly insufficient. There are other cases in our Scottish prisons to-day similar to the case which I have just mentioned. There is a boy in a Glasgow prison on a charge of stealing 4½d. and it is his first offence. The father of this boy was unemployed for a long time and could not pay the fine imposed and the boy was sent to prison. There are boys in prison to-day for playing football on the streets, for breaking various by-laws, for loitering on the pavement, and other offences of that kind. These boys are being made criminals, actually at a great cost to the community and the nation, apart altogether from the ultimate cost which will arise from the creation of a class of criminals in this way. Boys are sent to prison in cases where there is no criminal intent what-
ever but only high spirits such as I wish every boy in the country could possess.
The hon. and learned Member for Fare-ham (Sir T. Inskip) has asked why the Bill does not deal with this, that and the other case? This Bill deals with the problem on exactly the same lines as the hon. Gentleman's Act of 1925. Under that Act power was taken, as regards England and Wales, to provide probation officers. No similar Measure was adopted in relation to Scotland. Now, after four or five years of the operation of that Act in England and Wales, and after the holding of an inquiry in Scotland, we are bringing forward this Bill which seeks to ensure that we in Scotland shall have the same power for dealing with these matters as the authorities in England and Wales have possessed since 1925. The annual report of the Prisons Department for Scotland for 1929 shows that in our major prisons there were received in that year 882 boys and 58 girls of 16 years of age and under 21.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The Secretary of State for Scotland ought to liberate the whole lot of them.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I was about to point out what the Secretary of State for Scotland has been doing, administratively, and I suggest that he ought to get credit for what he has done. I think I am correct in saying that in about 100 instances where a boy who was in an institution could get a job, and where any individual would stand sponsor for him—in other words act as a voluntary probation officer for him—my right hon. Friend has released that boy and in not one case of the kind has there been any complaint or recurrence of the trouble. That is a remarkable thing and my right hon. Friend has achieved that result, as I say, by administrative act.

Sir T. INSKIP: Voluntarily.

Mr. JOHNSTON: But it cannot be done voluntarily in every case. There are boys and girls in whose cases you cannot get sponsors and there are areas where you cannot get sponsors—where you cannot get suitable voluntary probation officers.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Poor people?

Mr. JOHNSTON: Not necessarily poor people. They may be the children of
drunken parents or something of that kind. It is not a case of poverty. I agree, absolutely, that we should not begin subsidising various organisations, and there is no intention of doing so, but surely the Secretary of State or the probation committees should have the widest possible option, to draw from the widest possible areas those willing to assist in saving boys and girls from the criminal fate of association with old "lags." It should be our duty collectively to find these young people employment, to look after them and to give them a chance in life. I say so the more strongly because of the experience which I have had on education authorities and as a magistrate. That experience convinced me that the overwhelming majority of young men and women who start a criminal career, do so, not because they are naturally criminals, but because society as at present organised made it impossible for them to be anything else.
Various points have been raised by hon. Members which I think are Committee points. A question has been asked about the £25 fine. That is a recommendation by the Committee of Inquiry but we are willing to consider all these questions on their merits in the Committee stage of the Bill. Nobody wants to make things worse for these young people and everyone wants to make things better for them. There is no political issue involved, and surely we can get the co-operation of all parties in the House to give 1,000 of our young men and women a better chance in life than they are likely to have if this Bill does not pass. It is because I hope that we shall get that co-operation that I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

GREY SEALS PROTECTION BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill was introduced in accordance with the undertaking I gave in the course of the Committee stage of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill in November, 1929. On that occasion the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) moved an Amendment to delete from the Schedule to that Bill the Grey Seals Protection Act, which was passed in 1914, and which has since 1918, when in the ordinary course it would have lapsed, been continued by four successive Expiring Laws Continuance Acts. The hon. Member represented that the number of this species had increased, that it did considerable damage to the fisheries, and that the need for protection no longer existed. Subsequent speakers, however, expressed doubt both as to the damage done and as to the expediency of removing the protection and leaving the species open to uncontrolled attack. The hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) said it was the brown seal that did all the damage to the nets; the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) said the grey seal was one of the rarest British mammals; and the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Commander Southby) protested against any permits being given for the destruction of the grey seal.
The grey seal is of very little commercial value. The haunts of the grey seal are far removed from the estuaries where salmon netting is carried on, particularly at the season when they are protected by Act of Parliament. The young, being unable to swim for a considerable time, are in a defenceless condition and require protection, unless we are prepared to see the species exterminated. In reply to the Debate, I suggested that the best way of dealing with the matter would be to have a new Act, giving power to the Minister to regulate protection from time to time according to circumstances, as is done in the case of wild birds. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland accepted this suggestion as a reasonable way out of the difficulty, and withdrew his Amendment, and I hope that that admirable precedent will be followed by hon. Members on the present occasion.
After consultation with the Fishery Board for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, it appeared that the convenient course to follow would be
to establish protection as in the existing Act, but with the widest and most flexible powers possible to vary or suspend the protection. This method means, in effect, a bias in favour of protection which seems in present circumstances to be justified. The Bill will enable the Minister, as regards England, and the Secretary of State as regards Scotland, to withdraw the protection during the breeding season, either wholly in any breeding period or during part of the period, or in any specified area during the whole or any part of the breeding period. That arrangement, to my mind, should satisfy any reasonable opponent of the Bill. Hon. Members will observe that Parliament will have the opportunity of objecting to any proposed Order for these purposes before it is made, as the Bill provides for a, draft of any such Order being laid before each House for not less than 48 days.
Certain Amendments have been made to the Bill during its passage in another place. None of these affect the principle of the Measure, and I see no reason to take exception to them. The most important change is the introduction of provisions enabling the appropriate Minister to regulate the methods of slaughter of grey seals in their breeding places at any time when protection is withdrawn. It will be necessary, during the passage of the Bill, to amend Clause 3, which was drafted on the basis that the Bill might pass before Christmas. Pending the passage of this Bill, the Act of 1914 has been continued by the Expiring Laws Continuance Act of the present Session, but the Amendment which we shall propose to Clause 3 will deal with that matter. I trust that the House will accept the principle of the Bill and consent to its Second Beading with as little discussion as possible.

Commander SOUTHBY: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words, "upon this day six months."
I should like to know why we are to have this utterly unnecessary Bill troubling the House at all. Have the Government nothing better to do at this time than to trouble this House with a Bill which, although it is called the Grey Seals Protection Bill, would be better named, in my submission, the Grey Seals Destruction Bill? All through his open-
ing remarks the Secretary of State for Scotland was referring to arrangements whereby permission might be given to destroy, and he even went so far as to say that the Minister is to be allowed to say in what way the seal is to be destroyed. Much good it will do the grey seal to know that it is going to be slaughtered by the humane slaughterer, with a rifle bullet, or whatever method it may be. There is not much protection, so far as the animal itself is concerned, in that. It seems to me that the Government, having while they have been in office destroyed confidence and prosperity, are now continuing their work by endeavouring to destroy the grey seal.
I suppose it is the hope of the Minister that if the Bill is taken now it will go. through—indeed, he expressed that hope —with as little discussion as possible. It is no wish of ours on this side that the Bill should be taken at all. When the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill was before the House recently, this Bill was included in it, and observing the pressure of business which the Government say there is, and the gravity of the position of the country at the present time, it might well have been left in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill instead of being brought in as a separate Measure. The fact, however, that this Bill has been brought in does not necessarily mean that there is to be no opposition to it, and indeed since the Government have brought it in, they must expect opposition to it.
It may be—I do not know what we shall hear from the benches below the Gangway on this side—that this is one of the Measures which is part of the pact between the Liberal party and the Socialist party of which we hear so much. It may be a case of, "You give us the grey seal, and we will give you the alternative vote." About that I do not know, This Bill is entitled the Grey Seals Protection Bill, and yet, when you look through it, you find that one of the most important provisions in it is that:
in the case of England, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and, in the case of Scotland, a Secretary of State, may at any time by order direct, either generally or as respects any area described in the order, that, notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provision—
9.0 p.m.
(a) there shall be no close season.
In other words, it leaves it in the power of the Ministry to allow, and indeed to advocate, the destruction of an animal which already is too rare, and which I hope to show does no damage whatever. I should welcome the Grey Seals Protection Act of 1914 being taken out of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act if the real object of the Government were to protect the grey seal, but I oppose this Bill because it is not really a measure to protect the grey seal, but a Measure to facilitate its destruction by those persons who are anxious to destroy it. In other words, Halichoerus grypus, the grey seal, is like the rest of us, to be at the mercy of a Government Department. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture has stated that so far as he has been able to ascertain, the grey seal is not injurious to fishing at all, but that the common seal is. Obviously the whole reason for giving any permission to destroy the grey seal must be that it is alleged to be destructive of fish or the fishing industry; but what did the Noble Lord who was recently the Minister of Agriculture say when he was closely questioned by the hon. Baronet the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) on the subject of damage done to fishing by seals. The Minister said that investigations had produced no evidence to show that the common seal caused any material damage to fisheries in the Wash, and he did not think that the expenditure of public money on the payment of awards for its destruction would be justified. He went on, in answer to a Supplementary Question to say that elaborate investigations had been carried out during the last four years, and that the evidence was in the direction opposite from that indicated by the hon. Baronet, who stated that the seal was responsible for a great deal of damage. The Act of 1914 which protected the grey seal, and which has been kept alive in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, has been admitted by the Parliamentary Secretary to have had a good effect, and to have increased the numbers of grey seals; but he said that there was still a shortage of these animals, and that it was necessary to continue their protection. If it be necessary to continue the protection of the grey seal, why should the Government
bring in a Bill which will facilitate its destruction and make it possible for anybody to apply to the Minister for permission to destroy it? It has been stated by an authority on this subject that if the grey seal eats fish at all—and the fact that it is alleged to be destructive of fishing interests must be the only reason for giving any permission for its destruction—it eats dog-fish. If it eats dog-fish, the Minister should do all in his power to prevent anybody touching it, because dog-fish are the most destructive of any fish to the fishing industry. And yet it has been stated by the Parliamentary Secretary that it is not the grey seal which eats fish but the common seal! What did the hon. Baronet the Member for Orkney and Shetland say in the Debate on 26th November, 1929 on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill? The hon. Baronet came forward as a blood-thirsty pursuer of Holichoerus grypus. He said:
We have to remember that the seal is a bandit, and the fact that it is an interesting and picturesque creature is no reason why we should overlook the fact that it is a bandit which does a great deal of damage, particularly to the salmon fisheries in Scotland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1929; col. 1332, Vol. 232.]
In that Debate the hon. Member produced no evidence that the grey seal was destructive to salmon fishing. Here we have the real reason for the introduction of this Measure. It must be obvious to the House that, underlying its introduction, is the desire of those who have salmon fishing interests that there should ultimately be unrestricted destruction of this mammal on the ground that it is destructive to fishing interests. How long does anybody suppose that this uncommon and really very rare mammal will exist if left to the mercy of a Government Department, even though it be presided over by a Minister so benign and kindhearted as the right hon. Gentleman who has introduced the Bill? What has been the history of the protection of the grey seal? The Act was passed in 1914, and it protects grey seals between 1st October and 15th December. During the Debate in 1929 the Secretary of State made the statement that the Act protects the grey seal from the 1st October to 28th November, but I think that must have been a slip. I have been at some pains to go into this matter with experts who are able to give me reliable information,
and there appears to be no doubt that, whatever we think about this Bill, it should protect the grey seal, if it is to do any good, from September to the end of December.
The original Act was passed to restrain the action of those who were persecuting the grey seal all round our coasts, and, although it undoubtedly saved the grey seal from extinction, it is not clear that there has been any great addition to its numbers. The total number is undoubtedly small, and in any case could do very little harm to the fishing industry. The Parliamentary Secretary said that there was still a comparative shortage of grey seals. By all means reduce the numbers of the common seal, whose Latin name is Phoca vitulina. It does a considerable amount of harm to the fishing industry. What makes me suspicious about this Bill is the appearance of no Amendment on the Order Paper by the hon. Baronet the Member for Orkney and Shetland. In the Debate in November, 1929, he moved an Amendment which would have permitted the destruction of the grey seal, allowing no close time.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I think I withdrew it on an undertaking given by the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Commander SOUTHBY: That is quite true, I would not misrepresent the hon. Baronet, but his only reason for withdrawing it was that there might be brought in a Bill which would satisfy his desire for slaughter and not any wish to preserve the grey seal. If any proof were needed of the point I am making it is found in the attitude of the hon. Baronet. This Bill satisfies him, but the Bill that was before the House in 1929 dissatisfied him so much that he moved an Amendment to it, and withdrew it only because he was hoping to get this Bill. If this Bill satisfies him I leave it to the House to judge how much real protection there is in it for Halichœrus grypus, the grey seal.
Before the House signs the death warrant of the grey seal it may be as well that it should know a few details. The species is rare. It is found on the shores of the North Atlantic and the adjoining waters only within comparatively narrow limits. It is very rare in America, though known off Nova Scotia, Labrador and East Greenland. One
of the biggest colonies still existing, which will come to an end, I suppose, if the hon. Baronet has his way, is off an island called Hysker, in the Outer Hebrides. [Interruption.] None are found off the Isle of Man. The seal used to be found at different places off the Coast of Norway, between 71 degrees North and 58 degrees North, and off the South Coast of Iceland. They are known in the Faroe Islands and the Orkney and Shetland Islands, though if this Bill passes into law it, is doubtful whether they will ever be seen again in the Orkneys and Shetlands. They are known off the Hebrides, off the North of Scotland and in the St. George's Channel down to the Scilly Isles, where I myself have seen Halichœrus grypus in his native element, and off the South Coast of Devon and the Channel Islands. A peculiar race of them also inhabit the Baltic. It is important to note that the grey seal does not wander very far from its original habitat. It remains in its customary breeding places, and, therefore, if we harry it in its breeding places we shall exterminate it in those localities. It will not come in from elsewhere and fill the vacancies, as it were, which have been made by destroying it in its particular areas.
The point that is most important in this discussion is the question of the breeding season. The whole of the Bill turns upon the close season for this animal. Seals breed in little colonies here and there, and in scattered pairs, not over a very large area, between the months of October and December; except the variety found in the Baltic, which has the curious habit of breeding on the drift ice floes from January to March. They are, of course, the best judges of their own affairs! The young are born at the end of September or the beginning of October. In the Shetlands—and I would remind the hon. Baronet once again of those months—in September, October and November. If you wish to destroy this mammal absolutely, then the obvious thing to do is what is proposed in this Bill, that is, to allow it to be attacked during what is at present the close season. If it were really desired to protect it we should have to extend the close season right on from September to the end of December, or even to the end of January. As a matter of fact there has been a case in
Wales of an extraordinarily late birth of a grey seal, one having been born in March. In the other places the births take place up to December. It is obvious, therefore, that this Bill does not go far enough. If the Minister is sincere in his desire to protect the grey seal he ought to protected it from September to the end of December. I would remind the Minister of something he himself said in the House in 1929:
The young, being unable to swim for a considerable period, are in a defenceless condition.
And he added:
I understand that sometimes attacks are made on those colonies of grey seals where the young are in that helpless condition."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1929; col. 1343, Vol. 232.]
What protection does the Bill give? It will allow them to be destroyed not only during the breeding season but at a time when the young seal is totally helpless and cannot leave the rocks or sandbanks. There are more male seals than females. In that respect, the seal differs from the human population. If it were possible for the right hon. Member to instruct those who wish to destroy seals to differentiate between the male and the female, there might be something to be said for allowing destruction during the breeding season. He has made a great point of the fact that an Order has to lie upon the Table of each House for a period of 48 days, but that does not help us very much, because the period of gestation of the grey seal is about 11½ months, and if the young are to be protected they ought to be protected not for the short period mentioned in the Bill, or even for the period which I have said is strictly necessary, but practically for the whole of the year. Is it proposed that when permission is given to shoot these animals it should be a permission to shoot only the male seals?
In the speech of the hon. Baronet on 26th November, 1929, he entirely failed to prove that the grey seal ate fish at all. He quoted figures with gusto, and said that 624 seals had been shot in five years by one man. The Minister is contemplating opening the shooting of grey seals to far more than one man. He shakes his head, but there is nothing in the Bill which would not allow grey seals to be shot all round the coast. Scotland
may not always have as Secretary of State one who is so kind-hearted and fond of animals as the present Minister. By the whirligig of time it is even possible that a miracle might happen and the Liberal party below the Gangway come into office. What would happen then to Halichœrus grypus if the hon. Baronet filled the position now occupied by the right hon. Gentleman? What hope would there be for any seal, male or female, or for their young? When he quoted the figure of 624 seals shot in five years by one man—and that is nothing to be proud of—he said those were certainties, they were bull's eyes, but that the marker was not sure of some of the other shots and that probably the number shot was about 1,000. He added that he was bound to admit that he could not say whether they were grey seals or whether they were the ordinary brown seals. It is true that these seals go up the Dornoch Firth, and it is more than likely that they are regularly persecuted and shot in the Dornoch Firth.
The whole basis of the case against the grey seal, and really the case for this Measure, is that the grey seal is said to be an eater of fish, and therefore inimical to the fishing industry. I have proved, I hope, that there is not one word of truth in the suggestion that these animals are increasing in such numbers that they are becoming in any way a menace to fisheries. But even suppose that they were increasing, what is it that they actually do eat? Some information about the grey seal has been given by Lord Danesfort which is worthy of attention. He says
May I tell my Noble Friend that the grey seal eats dog-fish, which is the most pernicious fish. The common seal eats all kinds of fish and probably does not deserve protection, but the animal which eats this pernicious kind of fish, the dog-fish, does deserve protection.
We know from expert authorities that the food of this animal is chiefly crustacea, haddock, flounders, catfish, lump-suckers, etc., but in the winter it is chiefly starfish and crab, as the other fish run too deep under the water for them to be able to get at them. It may be possible that the grey seal does occasionally take a salmon, but surely the hon. Member should not object to a grey seal having one salmon occasionally. Is the hon. Member
so anxious that he should have a salmon whenever he goes to fish? In the winter there are plenty of starfish, and on this point I would like to state what was said by the hon. Member for Farnham when he spoke on the 26th of November. On that occasion, the hon. Member made a great point about the re-stocking of the oyster fisheries. I pointed out that in the winter the chief food of the grey seal was the starfish. I wonder if the hon. Member knows that the starfish may completely wipe out the oyster beds?
Therefore may I point out to the supporters of this Bill that if they want to preserve oyster fisheries, the best thing to do is to leave the grey seal alone, because that animal is particularly destructive of the one creature that is liable to ruin oyster fisheries, and that is the starfish. I think that destroys the whole battery of the defence which has been put up by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to be thankful that the grey seal is doing its best to preserve oyster fisheries. It is a well-known fact that if you destroy the balance of nature, you always do more harm than good. Is the hon. Baronet the Member for Orkney and Shetland quite certain that a decrease in the seal population would not increase furunculosis in salmon since it is possible that the seals themselves prey upon larger fish which in turn prey upon salmon? I am surprised at hon. Members opposite, who talk so much about protecting the lives of animals which are now hunted, being a party to the perpetration of what must after all be considered a blood sport on the person of the grey seal. Surely the desire to exterminate what is a harmless, beautiful and rare mammal, one to a large extent peculiar to the British islands, is only a blood-thirsty desire to make further sacrifices to modern commercial rapacity. The Prime Minister, writing in "Forward," on the 14th October, 1922, said:
I have been an unswerving hopeful regarding the Moscow Government …. We can now take the Moscow Soviet Communist Revolutionary Government under our wing and clothe it in the furs of apology to shield it from the blasts of criticism.
Is the grey seal to supply the fur? It is absolutely hypocritical to bring forward a Bill of this kind which is quite
unnecessary. If you wish to protect the grey seal leave it alone, and do not make it possible for anyone to shoot it. If you want to protect the grey seal, the best way to do it is to extend the breeding season, and again I repeat that this animal is one which does no harm to anyone.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I beg to second the Amendment.
We have listened to a very interesting account of an interesting fauna. This particular animal was the source of a good deal of ancient fairy lore, and it is credited with having originated the story of the mermaid. I was appalled at the record of slaughter which was recited by the hon. Baronet the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) who told us that one single person had killed 1,000 of these animals. I may say at once that I should be very reluctant to support this Bill in its present form. These particular animals are very innocent denizens of the deep, and, while I would allow the present Secretary of State for Scotland and his Under-Secretary the utmost liberty in this matter, if I thought they were likely to be there for any length of time, that is not likely, and they may be succeeded by people of a less humane disposition. With the broad interest they take in the Highlands they have gone round to view their dioceses, they have seen the many spots pointed out to them and have anxiously desired to fulfil the wishes of the inhabitants and build piers for thm, but Coll is still calling for its pier, and the island of Lismore is gradually getting less—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Robert Young): Grey seals are the subject.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I am only pointing out what may happen when other less humane Ministers are going round in the "Pharos," the boat called the lighthouse, and what may happen then. Some future Secretary for Scotland and his colleagues may see a lot of grey seals and, as there is a riflle on board, they may say, "Let us make a regulation and have some sport," and then pass a regulation on the spot. It is quite competent for them to do that. They do not get the 48 days draft, but they would probably risk that, and the Government would have some loyal supporter who
would see them through the difficulty. The extraordinary Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 says that the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Minister of Agriculture may make an order to render lawful the killing of seals during the breeding season.
It seems shocking that, in the interests of humanity, any official or any Member of the Government should have the right during the sacred period of the animal's life to give an order for its destruction. How are we to know we might not have a Secretary for Scotland with advanced views on birth control who might make such an order? We should not, as a humane Parliament, give anybody any authority to make an order of that kind. It is not necessary because of the history of the grey seal which we have heard, because of its habits, or because of the interests of mankind or of mankind's food supplies that the grey seal should ever be slaughtered. Its depredations are of the slightest degree, and we should not record in an Act of Parliament that during the breeding season the Secretary of State for Scotland has power to promote such an onslaught. This is, therefore, a very unnecessary and a very discouraging Bill in the interests of humanity.
If there is to be a case for a close time, it should be Considerably longer than from 1st October to 15th December. It should be from the middle of September to the end of January. That is absolutely necessary if you are to give these animals a chance. There are really very few of them in the world. They are almost like the Caribs whom we heard about the other day, an extinct race. [HON. MEMBERS: "And the Liberals."] Hon. Members suggest my hon. Friends below me, but nobody suggests that the close season for them should be repealed. We would like to see a larger number of them, and we should make adequate provision for them. We have not too many specimens of wild animals. It is a sad thing that, whenever we come to a new country there is always for the time being something like a holocaust of God's creatures. Whenever we have an animal whose existence does not conflict with or seriously impinge upon the existence of mankind, which we as men believe to be of most importance, we should
always try to preserve that animal wherever possible. We should preserve it for the purposes of sport. There are many types of animals who would not survive except for sport.
I speak for the sporting race of man. I have no use for the non-sporting type, Which is always of a very disagreeable kind. Here is an animal that there is no sport in shooting, it is a helpless denizen of the sea, and it is like shooting at a log. It is doing no harm to the human race, and it is an ornament to the sea. It is one of the few survivors of the prehistoric deep. This Bill, which is to take the place of the Act renewed under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, should not be passed. We can go on renewing the Act from year to year or, if necessary, make it a permanent Act, but we should not pass this Bill, which may lead to the total extermination of this beautiful decoration of the sea.

Lieut. - Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I am afraid that I cannot support the Amendment which was moved in such an amusing fashion by the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Commander Southby), nor is it my intention to follow him in his natural history discourse upon the habits and characteristics of this mammal, because, representing as I do a constituency of which fishing is one of the principal industries, I am obliged to take a somewhat less frivolous view of this matter than is necessary for an hon. Member whose constituency is entirely surrounded by land, and whose largest sheet of water is barely large enough to float a houseboat.

Commander SOUTHBY: On a point of Order. Is the hon. and gallant Member entitled to refer to my attempt to prevent this Bill becoming law as frivolous, and to refer to the extent of water in my constituency?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point Of Order.

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: May I for a few moment compare this Bill with the one already in force?? As the hon. Member said, there is, obviously, a mistake at the end of this Bill, because at the present moment we have an Act in force till the end of this year protecting the grey seal throughout the breeding
season. The effect of this Bill would be to give the option to the Secretary of State for Scotland or to the Minister of Agriculture to deprive the grey seal of that protection which it at present enjoys in the breeding season, if it is considered necessary to do so. At the present moment, the grey seal is protected throughout the breeding season from 1st October to 15th December. The only effect of this Bill would be, in the event of this mammal becoming too numerous, to authorise the Minister to allow this animal to be destroyed under certain conditions. Of course, we all hate the idea of an animal being destroyed during the breeding season, especially when it applies to the female of the species, but if it can be proved that that animal has attained numbers which are adversely affecting any particular industry, it is a painful necessity that the interests of the human race should be placed first and that measures should be taken to reduce the superfluous numbers of that animal.

Mr. COCKS: Why not teach them birth control?

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: Hitherto people have not attained that height of intelligence which enables them to instruct the lower creatures in those ideals. There is not the least doubt that in the year 1914, when the Act was originally brought in, the grey seal was to a very large extent in danger of extermination. For some reason, or other, the grey seal has been a target of attack to a greater extent than the brown or common seal. In addition to that, whereas the brown seal has a very good idea of protecting itself, the grey seal is invariably easier of access and easier to shoot or destroy. Among other habits, it has the habit of basking on a sandbank—I am speaking now of its habits on the East Coast—in comparatively shallow water, so that when it is approached it has some distance to go before it is immune from attack, whereas the brown or common seal invariably basks on rocks in deep water, and, on the first alarm, it disappears below the surface for a minute or two, and is not seen again except when it just puts its nose out of water to enable it to breathe.
The result was that the grey seal was destroyed much more quickly than the brown seal, and there is no doubt that in
1914 this rather interesting animal was in danger of extinction. Therefore, at that time a Bill was introduced, which became an Act, giving it protection during the breeding season. The result of that Act has been that these animals have increased in number to a very large extent practically all round the coasts of these islands. At present there is no danger of the species becoming extinct, and we are face to face with the fact that they are doing very considerable damage to the fishing. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom says that this animal does not destroy fish to any extent, and he advances the theory that its having a different dentition means that it lives entirely, or almost entirely, on shell-fish, molluscs or starfish. That, however, is far from being the case. My hon. and gallant Friend admitted that this animal does destroy catfish and dogfish, and I think it is imposing too great a strain on the credulity of the House when he asks us to believe that an animal which is capable of catching such an active fish as the dogfish would not also destroy salmon, or plaice, or cod, when suitable opportunities occurred.
I do not for a moment suggest that this animal does anything like the damage that the brown seal does, partly because of its different habits, and partly because of its being so very much fewer in numbers; but the fact remains that this Act has done what it was intended to do. The grey seal around the coast, and particularly on the East Coast, is at the present time doing very considerable damage. Not only does it destroy the ordinary fish, but it gets into the mussel beds and cockle beds, which have recently been encouraged between Hunstanton and Wells, and destroys a very large number of these beds, which at the present time are being rather carefully preserved. In these circumstances, I think that the present Measure goes a long way towards meeting the facts of the situation. It will give the Minister the power, upon application being made, to order the destruction of a certain number of these animals during the breeding season, by means which he has the power to dictate, and I think that the Bill, while it will not in any way endanger the continued existence of the grey seal, will to a very large extent prevent it from damaging and destroying the fisheries,
which at the present time are being very seriously affected by the depredations of both kinds of seals.

Sir R. HAMILTON: I must say that I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Commander Southby), who moved the rejection of this Bill, but I always fail to understand why, when this question comes up, it is regarded as a subject for frivolity. The hon. and gallant Member said that he had studied the habits of the grey seal in the Scilly Islands, but I should like to remind him that I come from islands which are far from Scilly, and where the matter of the destruction of fish by seals is regarded as a serious one, as the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward) has just reminded the House. I do not know on what grounds the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom said that grey seals did no damage, or practically no damage. The grey seal is a very large animal—

Commander SOUTHBY: I quoted the reply to a question put by the hon. Member himself to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries at the time, who told him that the bounty on the destruction of ordinary seals had been withdrawn; while the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry stated that the grey seal does less damage than the brown seal. Therefore, if there is no occasion now for paying bounties for the destruction of brown seals because they do no damage, much more must it be that there is no case against the grey seal.

Sir R. HAMILTON: May I point out to the hon. and gallant Member that the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries is not always right? In this matter he has been severely controverted. May I quote from an article which recently appeared in the "Fishing Gazette," on the damage done by grey seals, one or two rather interesting facts for the information of the House? I was saying, when I was interrupted, that the grey seal is a very large animal, as hon. Members know, and he needs a very large quantity of food to keep up his temperature in the very cold waters in which he lives. The article to which I have referred contains this statement:
Two cod at ten pounds each and a few pounds of shell-fish at a meal, and two meals a day, means 50 pounds of edible fish, mainly cod, ling, conger and salmon, taken daily in Scottish waters by the 5,000 grey seals supposed by experts to live in those waters.
I leave that little sum to be worked out by the hon. and gallant Member, and, when he has done it, I would ask him if the damage done by these animals is negligible? It is a very considerable sum indeed when it is added up at the end of the year. As regards numbers, these 5,000 grey seals are supposed to live in one group of islands alone, the Tresnish Islands, but there are many other places where these grey seals breed besides those islands. The experts of the Fishery Board for Scotland put the number of grey seals in the neighbourhood of the Tresnish Islands at 5,000, and the article I have quoted says that that estimate of 5,000 is much under the correct number. It states that there are quite 2,000 grey seals on other islands off the coast, and it refers to other places which I need not quote. As regards the food of the grey seal, may I quote this:
It is not only the damage that they do in taking salmon out of the nets, hut tremendous damage is done to the nets.
A great deal was made of the fact that in the last Debate that took place in this House I referred to a gentleman who shot something like 1,000 seals in a year. That was not by way of sport. He was sent up there to re-establish a salmon fishery which had been destroyed by the depredations of seals. He laid himself out to do it, and he succeeded, by very hard work, in keeping down the seals for three years and restoring that fishery, which had been given up as hopeless, into a profitable, paying concern. It was for reasons such as these that I pressed the Minister 18 months ago to take some steps by which the increase in the numbers of these animals could be kept down.
The hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) said that it was very dangerous to disturb the balance of nature. We all know that it is, and the present set of circumstances has arisen because we have disturbed the balance of nature by protecting these animals. It was in answer to the speech that I made at that time that the Secretary of State for Scotland undertook to bring in such a Measure as this which
would give him the opportunity not, as has been suggested, wantonly to destroy these very interesting and beautiful animals, but to take such measures as may be necessary, when they increase so as to damage our fisheries, to keep down their numbers. I have to thank the right hon. Gentleman for introducing the Bill, which entirely implements the promise that he then gave. I have perfect confidence in the Secretary of State for Scotland in the future, whoever he may be, to see that these powers are not abused. This House has also power to check them because it will have 48 days in which to protest against any proposed order. That being the case, may I appeal to the House not to make fun of this Measure but to treat it as a serious Bill and to pass it with as little ridicule and ribald comment as possible.

Major GEORGE DAVIES: I think the hon. Gentleman has been a little less than fair to those who are opposing this Bill. There is a humorous side to many serious subjects. If it were not sometimes brought out, this House would appear an infinitely duller debating society than it sometimes is. I wish to support the Amendment for reasons not altogether identical with those of my hon. and gallant Friend. In studying the Bill, the one good thing I find to say for it is that at last it takes this matter out of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. That is a matter which always seems to me an unsatisfactory means of keeping on Acts from year to year. It was originally included in that Act because the principle was not entirely clear, and it was decided after experience to see whether it was necessary to deal with the matter definitely by an Act of Parliament or to renew it from year to year. That state of affairs has continued for a considerable time. Of course, the time has come to take it out of that Act and to deal with it in a new Act of Parliament, but I do not believe this Bill is the way to deal with it. It leaves an extraordinarily disagreeable taste in the mouth. It says that a boat may be used
for the purpose of killing, wounding or taking a grey seal.
So that we are going to permit steps to be taken for the purpose of wounding the grey seal. It has already come out that this is one of the most defenceless
creatures. It is one of the most interesting creatures and is amongst the rarer of the larger creatures that inhabit our waters, and here we are, in the year of our Lord 1931, bringing in an Act of Parliament under certain conditions to allow people to take boats for the purpose of wounding grey seals. I oppose this provision for many reasons. If this was a short Bill specifying an actual close season for taking grey seals, we should be nearly unanimous. I have not the scientific knowledge which has been disclosed by my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Amendment, but I know there can only be three reasons for dealing with the Measure in this way. The last speaker suggested directly that one of the ways of keeping the balance of nature was the use of the bullet. That is not my idea of keeping the balance of nature. That is an interference with the balance of nature, and it is only justifiable on much more serious grounds than any that have been brought forward.
There are only three possible reasons for this provision. One is that the grey seal is such a menace to an important industry that it should be put out of the way, the second is for pseudo-sportsmen to have pot shots at it, and the third is that it should be exploited by reason of its own value. The third reason has been distinctly disposed of already. I am told there is no particular value to the animal and so the exploiting of it for purposes of trade or industry does not arise. With regard to the menace to the fishing industry, I am satisfied that the case is not proved. There are arguments used on both sides. I have read a good deal of literature by different authorities, and, like doctors, in many cases they do not all agree. It is idle for anyone to say that the argument is entirely on one side, as was indicated by the last speaker.
I believe the damage done is infinitesimal as compared with the grave-responsibility that we are taking in giving a Second Reading to this Measure, which is one of the most inhumane things I have ever been asked to support. It really comes down to this, that there are a great many people who are interested in having a pot shot at an easy object. The nefarious inclinations of pseudo-sportsmen should be checked. It is a
monstrous thing that we should be asked to give, even to the present occupation of the office of Secretary of State for Scotland, authority under any conditions to allow people to go in the breeding season for the purpose of killing or wounding the grey seal. I hope this is not going to be regarded purely as something that has a humorous side. There are humorous sides to the grey seal, to the Liberal party and to a good many subjects, but this is much more serious. Hon. Members opposite will gladly put their names to Bills which have, as I conceive, a misdirected purpose of humanity. We do not question the honesty of their motive in a matter like this. I fully share those feelings in this instance and I hope sincerely that this is going to a Division so that I may record my vote against it.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I rise to support the Second Reading. My hon. and gallant Friend who moved the rejection represents an inland constituency. I represent people who earn their living as fishermen. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Yeovil (Major Davies) has made his little contribution to the opposition of the Bill.

Major DAVIES: I may be the Member for Yeovil but I have been more identified with whale and sea fisheries probably than any other Member.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: That may be so, but I am speaking on behalf of men who earn their living neither in catching whales nor seals, but fish for the food of the people. The representatives of the fishing ports around the coast are all in favour of the Measure. Surely that ought to be some testimony to the fact that it is desired by the fishermen who have to contend with these mammals. I know it has been argued that certain scientists have said that this particular mammal does not destroy fish which is suitable for the food of man. If you asked any fisherman, a practical man, who has had real experience of these mammals, he would tell you an entirely different story. I once had this matter out with a certain gentleman who said that he had made a scientific investigation into this question, and the reason which he gave for stating that those seals are not destructive of edible fish,
was that he had had several of those seals cut open, had examined the contents of their stomachs and had found only a small quantity of small fish therein. But that depends upon the season of the year during which the seals are caught. If he had caught seals at other periods of the year, he would have found that they were gorged with fish, which might have been caught by our fishermen and used for the food of the people of this country.
I consider that this is a very mild Measure, indeed. I would call the attention of the hon. and gallant Member for Yeovil to the fact that when he quoted the words "killing, wounding or taking," and said he was shocked to think that the right hon. Gentleman had introduced a Bill to allow killing and wounding, he was quoting from the Section which states that a penalty will be inflicted upon people for doing this sort of thing, and not for allowing it to be done. Before coming to the House to discuss this Bill, I should have thought that he would at any rate, have read the Bill.

Major DAVIES: It is an entire misapprehension on the part of my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) because, while it is true that it provides penalties, it is quite obvious that the penalties can only be applied when these things are done.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: That is indeed a politician's argument. I should like to see my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Yeovil addressing a little party of my fishermen and telling them that story. When he discusses the question of sportsmen having a very easy job in shooting these particular mammals it is evident that he has not had the experience of hunting them himself. I would suggest to him and to other Members who are opposing the Bill that it they desire to be logical and consistent, they should support every Bill introduced into this House for the protection of any animal which it is lawful to hunt at the present moment. He ought to be prepared to be a strong supporter of any Bill to stop the hunting of the stag in Somerset or in any other county in England, but I wonder what his constituents would say to him when he went down.
10.0 p.m.
I am not surprised at the opposition from my hon. Friends above the Gangway, because, as I stated earlier on, they have not come into direct contact with the fishermen who have to suffer from the depredations of these particular mammals. I was indeed shocked that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) should support the rejection of this Bill. Usually we find that he is a keen supporter of any Measure which is to protect fishermen, and particularly the inshore fishermen. I am not speaking in defence of the Bill simply because I represent Grimsby, which is a large trawling port, but because I also have a great interest in the inshore fishermen, who have to earn their living around our coasts. Indeed, I can claim to represent more inshore fishermen than any other Member of the House, because I have a large number of them in my constituency. They are the small men in the industry who suffer because of the depredations of these particular mammals. We have had fishery debates in this House time and time again. Pleas have been put forward on behalf of the inshore fishermen. Members have appealed to successive Governments to render assistance to them both in the shape of loans and grants in order to help the inshore fishermen to carry on their vocation, realising that like every other industry, when the machine comes into operation, the hand worker finds it more and more difficult to earn a living. I have a great deal of sympathy for the inshore fisherman. I know that Members in this House have expressed, from time to time, their sympathy with the inshore fishermen, and occasionally we have an opportunity of rendering those men some little practical help. This Bill, at any rate, provides us with an opportunity of doing so tonight and I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading.
The question has been raised as to the power which is given to the Minister under the Bill, but I submit that it does not give any undue power to any Minister. Surely, no Minister would be so foolish as to allow the killing of these particular mammals if it was not absolutely necessary in the interests of the fishermen that they should be so dealt with. I am satisfied that whoever occu-
pies the position which the right hon. Gentleman occupies now he will never allow an Order to be brought before this House and laid upon the Table until he has made himself absolutely satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of the fisheries that such an Order should be made. It is a matter of commonsense. He is not coming forward in the House of Commons to lay an Order upon the Table which is likely to be criticised because of the fact that he has not made himself acquainted with the circumstances in connection with the matter. I think that it is giving a, right and proper power to the Minister, bearing in mind that an Order has to lie upon the Table of the House for 48 days during which any Member, even the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Commander Southby), can go on making inquiries and if he finds that the statements of the fishermen of a particular area are not correct he can come to this House and put the case before it, and the Order may be rescinded.
I hope that we shall not even divide against the Bill. It is a very mild Measure giving a small measure of justice to those men who have been described on so many occasions as the gallant men of our fishing fleets, who, indeed, during the War period showed themselves to be men of endurance and of courage, and who in minesweepers and patrol boats saved the British Navy from disaster on many occasions. Let me remind my hon. and gallant Friend that these men, at any rate, should be given reasonable protection.

Commander SOUTHBY: The hon. Member should not misrepresent me. I am not in the least anxious to do anything which would injure the fishermen. Our case is that there is no case for the destruction of the grey seal. The common seal does much damage, and I would remind the hon. Member that it is hardly fair. My point is that the grey seal is innocent of any damage to fisheries and that is why I do not wish it to be destroyed.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I would not suggest for a moment that the hon. and gallant Member had any grudge against the fishermen.

Commander SOUTHBY: Certainly not.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I was only pointing out, as has been pointed out on many occasions, that these gallant men rendered great services during the War, and that if any mammal was injuring the trade they followed, at any rate, power should be given to the Minister to investigate.

Commander SOUTHBY: Hear, hear!

Mr. WOMERSLEY: That is all that the Bill provides for. I am certain that my hon. and gallant Friend has not read the Bill which does not say that the Minister should destroy these seals. It gives the Minister power after investigation. He has to be thoroughly satisfied that they are destroying fish, and then he can make an Order and the matter can be dealt with. If it was a question of giving authority to anyone to destroy these mammals, without any restriction whatever, it would be a different matter. This is a measure of protection for the fishermen, and the House ought to give a Second Reading to the Bill.

Major COLFOX: On a point of Order. It seems to me that the whole of the Bill is out of order. The title of the Bill is:
to make further provision for the protection of the grey seal.
The whole of the Bill is in exactly the opposite direction and seems to make still less provision for the protection of the grey seal. At the moment, the grey seals are entirely protected. This Bill merely gives them a short close time. Therefore, I submit that the Bill is entirely outside the scope of the Title.

Mr. SPEAKER: If I had thought that that there was anything out of Order in the Bill, I should have called the attention of the Government to it.

Mr. JOHNSTON: This is a Bill to protect the grey seal. The grey seal only lives by virtue of the fact that it is protected every year through the expedient of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. If by any mischance the grey seal was taken out of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, it would not be protected. The question has been raised repeatedly in the House. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) has continually desired to have the protection withdrawn, but the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Commander Southby) and the hon. Member for
Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) should support the Secretary of State far Scotland in his determination to protect the grey seal. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State feels that the protection of the grey seal should be put upon another foundation, a more secure foundation. I am sorry to see the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom in the company that he is now in. He should be supporting the attitude taken up by the Secretary of State for Scotland, because under the Bill the grey seal cannot be exterminated and cannot be attacked unless an Order is placed on the Table by the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries specifically declaring that a licence is to be given to kill. That Order has to lie on the Table of the House of Commons for 48 days. That, surely, is very much greater protection to the grey seal than is afforded by the present arrangement.

Commander SOUTHBY: The hon. Member has referred specifically to me. If this Bill gave greater protection to the grey seal I should support it, but he has said himself that under the present conditions the grey seal is protected from year to year completely. My argument against this Bill—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member must not argue the matter. He must not make another speech. There are other hon. Members who desire to take part.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I am not wishing to make a controversial issue. I am merely pointing out the position. I appreciate the fact that the hon. and gallant Member is sincerely anxious to protect the grey seal. This Bill does, in fact, afford greater protection to the grey seal than the grey seal has under the present law, because the grey seal depends for its existence upon the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, whereas under this Bill a positive Resolution has to be placed upon the Table of this House, and has to lie on the Table for 48 days before an Order can be given to kin. There is, of course, a case for and against. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has a considerable body of evidence against the grey seal and its depredations on the fishing industry. There are other hon. Members who say that the real enemy
is the brown seal, the common seal, and not the grey seal.
No Order can be brought forward and no Order can pass this House unless the Secretary of State for Scotland can produce evidence in support of the Order. I cannot imagine any Secretary of State for Scotland attempting to make such an Order unless he can produce sound evidence backed, say, by the Fishery Board, or other reliable evidence. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland says, this Bill is the result of an agreement which was reached on the last occasion when the matter was debated on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, in November, 1929. The Secretary of State for Scotland then declared that he was willing to take the grey seal out of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill provided that some such Measure as the one he has now introduced took its place. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland accepted that agreement, and so far as one can see from the records it appeared to be generally accepted as a fair and reasonable protection for the grey seal. I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom and his friends will recognise that the grey seal is better protected under an Order which has to lie on the Table 48 days before any change can take place. Moreover, such a Resolution must receive the assent of this House, if it should be opposed by any hon. Members. In these circumstances, I hope that the hon. and gallant Member and his friends will let us have the Second Reading of the Bill.

Sir JOHN GANZONI: Although my name is on the Order Paper as a supporter of the Amendment, I should not have said anything but for two facts. In the first place, I would refer to the special piece of pleading by the Under-Secretary. At the present time the grey seal is absolutely protected, and this Bill appears to offer something less. If we pass the Bill, the grey seal will be protected from the 1st October to the 15th December, but the Minister may at any time when he sees fit make an Order suspending that protection. It is somewhat sinister when that very kindly Minister who is so much beloved in all quarters of the House, the Secretary of State for Scotland, said that one of the most important provisions of the Bill
was that part which prescribed the methods of slaughter to be used when the Minister had made an Order.
The other reason is that I want to, protest against the attack made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) on what he called the frivolity of the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Commander Southby) in moving the rejection of the Bill. I should have thought that the charge of frivolity was contradicted by the very evident amount of research displayed by the speech. After an hon. Member with so many and versatile activities as the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom has obviously devoted all his spare time for weeks past delving into the Zoological Gardens and Brighton Aquarium—I have simply delved into the "Encyclopedia Britannica"—I should have thought that his researches would have been treated with more respect and have received a more kindly reception on the part of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. We must excuse the hon. Member because he and the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) as well as the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) were confusing two kinds of seals. They were thinking of the brown seal, which does appear to do a considerable amount of real damage, with the grey seal, a very much rarer mammal and one to whom a charge of this damage has never been brought home. On the contrary, the report is that the fisheries of the Wash have never suffered from damage by the grey seal.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Many fish have been lost in the Wash, but it is believed to he due to the common brown seal.

Sir J. GANZONI: A good many things have been lost in the Wash since King John lost his baggage. We say that nothing has been lost as a result of the depredations of the grey seal. It may be some other kind of seal. It may be that he-whiskered bandit Erignathus Bar-batus, the Bearded seal, or the Hooded seal or the Greenland seal, but I think a case has been made out for clearing the reputation of the beautiful grey seal. The subject has been discussed at some length already, and I doubt whether my immense researches from the well informed pages of the
"Encyclopedia Britannica" will carry the same weight as the experience of the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom who has sailed the deep seas for so many years, though not as a fisherman, or as the experience of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. The only thing I wish to impress upon the House is this, that there are many of us who feel strongly that it would not be wise and right to leave such a momentous decision in the hands of one individual, no matter how benign, like the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Sir DENNIS HERBERT: Some of us feel in a little difficulty about this Bill. Apparently, it is being opposed because It tends to exterminate the grey seal. The main point in the Bill is that this matter is left in the hands of the Secretary of State to deal with by Order, and that is a kind of authority which this House ought to be chary of giving unless there is good need. What is the position at the present moment? Parliament in years past has protected the grey seal year after year by the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, and after the explanation which has been given by the Under-Secretary of State this evening I have no doubt as to how I shall vote upon the Bill. I am going to oppose it, and for this reason: if I were a grey seal, benevolent as the present Secretary of State for Scotland may be, I would sooner rely for my protection on Parliament and the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill than on the good will of the Secretary of State. Still less would I like to commend my life to the protection or otherwise of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries in England.
If the grey seal is to be protected—really I have not discovered whether the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Under-Secretary wants to protect it or not—it seems to me that the proper way to protect it is for Parliament to protect it by the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill year by year. Parliament has retained to itself the power to put an end to that protection by not renewing it if it thinks fit in any particular year. Why should Parliament suddenly give up its rights to the Minister of Agriculture? If this is a matter which is to be decided from year to year, let it be decided by Parliament. The whole point of the Bill can be put
in a very few words: Is the future of the grey seal year by year to be dealt with by Parliament, as it has been for many years past, or is it to be dealt with by two individuals, who they may be we do not know, but may for the time being be the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Minister of Agriculture in this country? In these circumstances the House ready would be doing a very foolish thing in abrogating power most unnecessarily in favour of a Minister, by passing a Bill of this kind. I seriously suggest that hon. Members who are opposed to the grey seal and want to destroy it, and hon. Members who want to protect it, should unite in voting against the Bill, and that when the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill again comes before the House they should vote according to their views.

Major COLVILLE: I wish to draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland to a point of detail in the Bill. Clause 2 deals with offences in relation to grey seals during the close season. In Sub-section (1, a) we find it provided that there is a penalty for any person who "knowingly and with intent kills, wounds, or takes a grey seal." In Subsection (2, b) we find included:
an owner, master, charterer, or hirer of a boat who uses, or permits any person to use it for the purpose of killing, wounding or taking a grey seal.
Under that provision the owner of a boat might quite well be made subject to a penalty for an offence of which he is not in any way guilty. He might charter a boat for a period, and during that period some person might use it for killing grey seals. As the Bill is drafted, there is grave risk of injustice to the owner of any boat. I suggest that the word "knowingly" should be inserted before "permits," so as to bring Sub-section (1, a) into line with Subsection (1, b). The only general observation which I would make on the Bill, is that I hope we shall soon have a Government to protect our industries and not our seals.

Mr. CULVERWELL: I should not have intervened but for the inadequacy of the explanations given, both by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary, for taking the protection of this animal out of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act and putting it into this Measure. I am reinforced in
my doubts as to that course by the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton). Nothing said by the supporters of the Bill, so far, has been in favour of the grey seal. I hold no strong views on the question; I am not so vitriolic as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, who appears to have provided the inspiration for this Bill. But it strikes me as extraordinary that while the Bill is entitled
A Bill to make further provision for the protection of the Grey Seal,
it has the ardent support of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, who is an opponent of the grey seal. If the Under-Secretary of State is right in saying that this Bill is a better insurance of the life of the grey seal than the insurance which at present exists, then I cannot understand why the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland should be such strong supporters of the Bill. Everything we have heard so far has gone to show that, so far from the Bill giving more adequate protection to the seal, it removes that protection which this House has given for many years past. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State has given a most dishonest Title to the Bill. I do not want to make a party question of the grey seal. I do not know whether it is one of those Measures which some hon. Members opposite promised at the last Election, but, if so, I am surprised that they should not have given it a more honest and a more adequate Title. The topsy-turveydom of the right hon. Gentleman's Title reminds one of the lines from "Alice in Wonderland":
'You are old, Father William,' the young man said,
'And your hair has become very white; And yet you incessantly stand on your head—
Do you think, at your age, it is right?'
The title of this Bill is topsy-turvey and had I the knowledge of this interesting animal possessed by the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Commander Southby) I should probably be more than dissatisfied not only with the Title of the Bill but with the manner in which it has been introduced. We should have some stronger explanation as to why this matter is to lab removed from the annual survey of Parliament and brought under the control of the Minister. We have
every faith in the right hon. Gentleman but he is not always going to sit on that bench. He may not sit there very much longer, and we do not know who will occupy his position next. Hon. Members opposite who prate about humane slaughter and talk sentimental nonsense about dumb animals may turn to some other Minister who has taken the right hon. Gentleman's place, and ask him why he is not giving that protection to the seal which has been given in the past. I should also like to know why the Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland. We are informed that the grey seal lives, not only on the coast of Scotland but all round the British Isles, and we should be told why this Measure is not to extend to those seals which, fortunately or unfortunately, happen to reside on the coasts of Northern Ireland.

Major COLFOX: Although this Bill is entirely in order, I cannot help feeling that it is wrongly named and should have been called "a Bill for the better destruction of grey seals." I think I can trace some reason for its introduction from the fact that the Secretary of State or Scotland is a very well known and very successful salmon fisherman. There is undoubtedly and very unfortunately a prejudice—I believe an ill-informed prejudice—to the effect that grey seals do substantial damage to salmon fishing. The right hon. Gentleman has very little mercy on the salmon which it is his hobby to entrap. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] I withdraw that imputation on the right hon. Gentleman's sportsmanship, and say which it is his pleasure to lure, and that makes him have very little pity on the grey seal, which I feel sure, if he will only read all the literature there is on the subject, he would realise does extremely little damage to the salmon fishing in which he takes his pleasure.
We read in the Bill that an order may be made by the Minister, if he thinks fit, preventing the killing of these animals
by any weapon or instrument or in any-manner, not being a weapon.
I should like to know how a manner can be a weapon, and if he agrees with me that a manner cannot be a weapon, what is the meaning of line 4 on page 2 of the Bill? It seems to me that it is neither English nor any other language that I. have the privilege of knowing, and it makes no sense at all. I admit, of course, that that is more a Committee point than a Second Reading point, but,
I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would let me know if there is any meaning to be attached to this phrase, and, if so, what that meaning is.

Major LLEWELLIN: I rise partly to reinforce a point made by the hon. and gallant Member for North Midlothian (Major Colville), because it is obvious that if one reads Subsection (1, a) of Clause 2—and I noticed that the Minister had not his Bill before him when my hon. and gallant Friend was referring to this point—he will see that if a person kills, wounds or takes a grey seal during the close season he has got to do it knowingly and with intent to kill, but if a person
being an owner, master, charterer or hirer of a boat uses, or permits any person to use it,
and so forth, there is no such phrase as "knowingly and with intent to kill." It seems to me that certainly you may land in difficulties many people whose boats are unfortunately used for killing seals during even that small close season which is allowed to them under the present Bill. For some years this House has enacted that the grey seal, as apart from the brown seal shall have a particular close season for a particular period of the year.
The Minister, as I understand it, in this Bill is doing two things. He is first of all shortening that close season by 15 days, and, secondly, he is taking the power himself, by order, to shorten it even further. A lot of us think the decisions of this House in previous years to protect the grey seal, and protect it absolutely during the breeding season, have been right. I appreciate the reason that prompted my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) to speak on behalf of those fishermen whom he so ably represents in this House, but he inferred that hon. Members who came from inland constituencies had no right to speak on this Bill. That would mean that if we were discussing a Measure to exempt the kestrel hawk, the only people who would be justified in speaking on that Measure would be those who happened to spend their time in killing pheasants or partridges.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: If the hon. Member refers to the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow, he will find that I said that it was a singular thing that Members from fishing ports were all supporting the Bill.
I did not question the rights of other Members to speak on the Bill.

Major LLEWELLIN: I do not claim to have more knowledge of Scotland than the hon. Member, but I understand that there are many fishing ports in Argyllshire which is represented by the hon. Member who seconded the rejection of this Bill. I am afraid that the hon. Member was on far less solid ground than usual. As far as I understand the question of the grey seal, it has been decided that that rare mammal should be protected partly from the fact that it is gradually dwindling, and that if it were not protected, it would die out as a creature of great beauty and a certain amount of use. We are told that it kills conger eels which are not a great attraction to the fisher folk of this country, and that it does not do that damage to fisher folk that the brown seal does. The grey seal has always been protected in this House, and the Bill should have given it exactly the same close time as has usually been given by the Act which we have passed from year to year in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. I am sorry to see that less protection is to be given to the grey seal than has previously been given.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I want to know what is the matter with some hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. I have been looking at the Act, and I really believe that the Under-Secretary of State in accurate. It may be an astonishing position, but, as far as I can understand it, he is accurate. He states that it is better to have a Bill plus an Order than an expiring law coming before the House year by year. I do not agree with him on that point, but I will deal with that later. I want to draw the attention of hon. Members behind me to the fact that this Bill says that it is an Act to make "further provision." It does so in a sense, because it extends the date from the 1st day of October to the 15th day of December, both inclusive. If they look at the original Act they will see that it states:
If any person between the first day of October and the fifteenth day of December
There it is, "between" those dates; so we have got a day more at each end, a definite extension. If this were a permanent Bill to give this slightly extended close season for the grey seal I should be in favour of it. I did not hear any hon. Members who represent the fishing in-
dustry say that this period was too short, and apparently it is about the right period for which to give protection, but I cannot say for certain that the breeding season for grey seals is strictly confined between those two dates. What I really object to about the Bill is that instead of its being a very simple one, which we could have dealt with in a very short time, the Ministry has introduced this question of an Order. If there is an Order in a Bill, that invariably makes the passing of it a more complex affair. Many Members object to Ministers having power to make Orders. Could not the Secretary of State take back the Bill to-night and cut out the part about the Order, and then present it to the House again in its simplified form? We could then pass it in a very short time without the trouble of its having to go upstairs to Committee. If he framed it on the basis of the earlier Act he would have a much better Bill.
I also wish to call attention to that part of Clause 2 which deals with ships. As I understand the wording of the Clause, if a ship or a steamer, or even a torpedo, hit a grey seal, someone is to be liable to a penalty of £5 or £10. That seems to be carrying things rather too far. It is so loosely worded, however, that no one can really tell what the Clause does mean; anyone who tried to interpret it would probably be wrong in the meaning he attached to it. Another thing which has been worrying me is that whereas the former Act said nothing about England and Scotland separately, but was an Act for the whole country, the present Bill refers to England and to Scotland, to the Minister

of Agriculture and Fisheries in England and to the Secretary of State in Scotland. What I wish to know—and I do not see how we are to know unless the Minister of Agriculture is here—is why Wales is left out of this Measure. It is obvious why there is no reference to the North of Ireland; I take it that there they administer those things themselves; but Wales is left out. I wish to know why the Welsh fishermen are not to be protected. I quite realise that they have practically no representatives in this House; at any rate there are no watchful ones.
On this question, I speak for the West Country fishermen. I speak for the Devonshire fishermen. The Cornish fishermen are not represented very much, but I am always here. I think that the Minister, in his reply, ought to tell us why the Welsh people have been left out of this Measure. There is a further point to which my attention has been drawn. Certain hon. Members seem to think that the grey seal at the present time is not as destructive as the brown seal, but I have not heard any conclusive argument on that point. There is very little doubt that a few years ago, when there was a bad time for fishermen, the grey seal was responsible for the destruction of the salmon. For that reason, I think we should have a Measure passed on the lines of the present Bill and when this Bill comes to the Committee stage I hope it will be improved and shortened.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 181; Noes, 41.

Division No. 174.]
AYES.
[10.48 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Gill, T. H.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Glassey, A. E.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Calne, Derwent Hall-
Gossling, A. G.


Ammon, Charles George
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Gould, F.


Arnott, John
Chater, Daniel
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)


Aske, Sir Robert
Cluse, W. S.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Astor, Viscountess
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Groves, Thomas E.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Compton, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.


Ayles, Walter
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)


Batey, Joseph
Daggar, George
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Dallas, George
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Dalton, Hugh
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)


Benson, G.
Day, Harry
Hardie, George D.


Birkett, W. Norman
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Blindell, James
Duncan, Charles
Haycock, A. W.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Ede, James Chuter
Hayday, Arthur


Bowen, J. W.
Edmunds, J. E.
Hayes, John Henry


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Egan, W. H.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Elmley, Viscount
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Brothers, M.
Foot, Isaac
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Buchanan, G.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Hoffman, P. C.


Burgess, F. G.
Gibbins, Joseph
Hopkin, Daniel


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Marshall, Fred
Shillaker, J. F.


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Mathers, George
Shinwell, E.


Isaacs, George
Maxton, James
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Johnston, Thomas
Melville, Sir James
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Middleton, G.
Smith, Tom (Pontetract)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Miller, J. D.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Mills, J. E.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)
Milner, Major J.
Sorensen, R.


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Kelly, W. T.
Mu[...], G.
Stephen, Campbell


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Muggeridge, H. T.
Strauss, G. R.


Kinley, J.
Murnin, Hugh
Sutton, J. E.


Kirkwood, D.
Naylor, T. E.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Noel Baker, P. J.
Thurtle, Ernest


Lathan, G.
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Nerfolk, N.)
Tinker, John Joseph


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Toole, Joseph


Law, A. (Rossendale)
Palin, John Henry
Townend, A. E.


Lawrence, Susan
Palmer, E. T.
Viant, S. P.


Leach, W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Walkden, A. G.


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Pole, Major D. G.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Potts, John S.
Watkins, F. C.


Lindley, Fred W.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Rathbone, Eleanor
We[...]ock, Wilfred


Logan, David Gilbert
Raynes, W. R.
West, F. R.


Longden, F.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Westwood, Joseph


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Lunn, William
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Rowson, Guy
Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Sanders, W. S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


McElwee, A.
Sawyer, G. F.
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


McEntee, V. L.
Scurr, John
Wise, E. F.


Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Womersley, W. J.


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)



Manning, E. L.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


McShane, John James
Sherwood, G. H.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Markham, S. F.
Shield, George William
B. Smith.


Marley, J.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Albery, Irving James
Ferguson, Sir John
Salmon, Major I.


Atkinson, C.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Beaumont, M. W.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest, Whittome


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Smithers, Waldron


Butler, R. A.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Campbell, E. T.
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Macquisten, F. A.
Wells, Sydney R.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Colville, Major D. J.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.



Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Muirhead, A. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Remer, John R.
Sir John Ganzoni and Commander


Dawson, Sir Ph[...]p
Richardson, Sir P. w. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)
Southby.


Question put, and agreed to.

ANCIENT MONUMENTS [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law relating to ancient monuments, it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of all expenses incurred by the Commissioners of Works tinder the said Act.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Major COLFOX: Might we have some explanation from the Government as to the reason for this Vote?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): The reason for the Vote was explained the other night. There will be certain expenses connected with the Bill when it becomes an Act, and it is necessary that such a Resolution should be passed. The Measure itself is generally agreed, and no taking over of any property can take place without the previous voting of the money by this House.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

Adjourned accordingly at One Minute after Eleven o'Clock.